Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login
My mother is a big, big fan of Star Trek. Even Voyager. And she can tolerate Enterprise (let's forget that theme tune, though, shall we?). She's quite the tech geek, too, with knowledge that would rival most nerds in her granchild-centric age group. She once phoned me in the middle of the night (well, morning her time) to remind me that the DSi was going to be released, and if I was planning on buying one asap so I could tell her if it was worth getting.

People are often surprised by this. The fact that she's a Pakistani immigrant in her mid 60s might have something to do with it. So when I tell people that my grandmother was a massive, massive Trekkie, it's simply not to be believed. Just the idea of picturing an Indian woman in her late 40s sitting in her living room in Pakistan (in the '60s), never missing an episode of the exploits of Kirk and crew, seems inexplicable to people who find it hard to believe there are any Trekkie women in the Western world.


Star Trek (2009)
Star Trek (2009)


JJ Abrams' reboot of Star Trek was released on May 9th, and every day since then my mother has been trying to find a way to bring up "have you seen Star Trek yet?" into the conversation. Well, finally, after 4 months, I ended up seeing it. In IMAX. Naturally, we were late, and despite the New England Aquarium's advertised policy of forbidding latecomers, we were admitted. But with no choice but to sit in the 3rd row (not a punishment for tardiness, but rather, a testament to how popular this movie still is).


Despite the feeling of being at (Trekkie) Wimbledon, the movie itself was the tired but adorable cliché of watching my childhood dreams realised on screen. My teenage years had been fortified with lovely memories of big-screen adaptations of The Next Generation crew, but aside from a few brief nods/references it seemed the days of TOS were long gone.

Aside from this being absolutely positively excellent, one of the first things I noticed was that this movie is very self-aware. And, being an adaptation written and directed by a group of talented fans who weren't even alive for the show's original run in 1966, I suppose it has to be that self-aware. Much of the script offers calculated but endearing references and homages to the source material, including beloved catchphrases ("I'm givin' it all she's got, Cap'n!") and the original miniskirted-uniforms. But while the title of simply "Star Trek" was an indication to non-Trekkies that they needn't do homework before watching, there are some tidbits for lifelong Trek fans also. *SPOILER* For one of the best ones, all I can say is that if you think you see the red-shirted Scotty introduced an a high-octane set-piece, you'd be terribly, terribly wrong. Having said that, it's a shame we don't get to see our favourite Chief Engineer until much later in the game.

Star Trek (2009)


There are few gripes to be concerned with, as much of the focus is on pacing rather than plot. Writers Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman know that these iconic characters are already very well-known, so their introductions are quickly slotted in amongst the film's various action set-pieces, which are frenetically-directed to avoid the traditional pacing lag of most trilogy/franchise openers.

But despite the lack of needing long-drawn out character backstories, there are still too many characters to deal with - 9 principal characters, as well as the elder Spock and his and Kirk's families. Many reviews have raised the point of the film having no moral dilemma or political allegories, and I agree to a certain extent. While this is an introductory piece to the new Trek timeline, it really amounts to no more than a bunch of stuff happening, and by the time the film's 2 hours are over, you can't help but feel a bit cheated, or at least wanting more.

Hardcore Trekkies will note that the use of time travel has completely effed up the prime Timeline, resulting in completely different character histories for almost everyone involved, such as Uhura indeed having a love interest on the Enterprise, but it's definitely not Kirk. The SFX are decent, but it's the aerial shots in the beginning car chase (yes, car chase) that won me over, and Abrams' overzealous use of lens flares could constitute a rather dangerous drinking game.

Star Trek (2009), lens flare
gotta love those lens flares.


But what ultimately brings everything together is the near-perfect chemistry among the main acting 8. Chris Pine makes for a surprisingly good Kirk - reminscent of Shatner, but not aping him; he made the role his own, and it works well. Karl Urban and Bruce Greenwood lend admirable presence and realism to their respective roles as "Bones" McCoy and Captain Pike and Simon Pegg's comedic timing as Scotty is no less than perfect, but it's Zachary Quinto who outshines as young Spock.

Taking on the arguably the franchise's most popular character, Quinto is able to imbue the role with visible emotional restraint while still maintaining soem of the original beloved characteristics his predecessor Nimoy brought to the table. Needless to say, it's no easy task, considering the gamut of emotions that could be run to a fully human character who is exposed to the events Spock himself suffers throughout the movie. And speaking of emotion, Michael Giacchino (fresh from tugging heartstrings in "Up") provides the perfect audible accompaniement to every scene with pitch-perfect accuracy.

Sadly, I had never met my grandmother. After convincing my parents to name me Sara instead of Fatima, she passed away a few months before I was born. Every time I talk to my mother I'm told of various traits I inherited from her, and even the resemblance I bear. Despite how nerdy this sounds, I'd like to think her pagh saw an advance preview of the movie while hanging out in the wormhole with the Prophets.
17
Vote
   


IMDb's "News"Desk

July 22nd 2009 23:42
There are several reasons to dislike IMDb: the consistent errors, such as linking to the wrong name in news articles (is Hayden Panettiere really dating a 50 year-old cameraman?), use of character names as huge spoilers, or wrong dates/goofs despite several emails trying to correct them. But the worst is their godawful "News"Desk/WENN.

Way back when, I recall when there was actual movie-related NEWS in their NewsDesk, with actual, interesting, noteworthy content being published (for the skeptics, I'm only 28, so it hasn't been that long). Now, it's following a disturbingly tabloid template, reporting on random quotes from everyone from movie actresses who haven't worked in years (or dead ones quoted from a posthoumous biography), to the latest reality tv hopelessful.

This large amount of fail is compounded by the fact that their news articles re-use the same stock phrases ("slams", "has hit out at reports", "troubled star" "sparked fears") and over-exaggerate almost every facet of their "articles". A recent example cites Anna Faris, who's 32, and her "toyboy lover" Chris Pratt, who's 30. Or how about the fact that Emma Thompson is "desperate" (desperate, I tell you! DESPERATE! *can't* *breathe*) to star in "House, MD".

Worse still, is the fact that WENN/IMDb are owning up to the fact that most of their "news" items are in fact just dressed-up quotes collated from a recent magazine interview, usually with 3 or 4 separate quotes/items scattered throughout their daily news pickings. It's lazy journalism at its best. Or worst. I don't know. Ultimately they could clean up their sloppy writing/reporting habits and actually go back to posting specific, timely articles about things that are actually happening in the industry, or celebrity. Not just someone's random verbal free association ramblings.

So news items such as "[Charlize] Theron to Learn Spanish" or recent gems like "[Jerry] Hall finds young lovers 'creepy'" seem to fall flat on their asses as far as relevancy is concerned. I'm dreading the moment when WENN starts to feature two-page photo spreads of one of the Pitt-Jolie babies eating an ice cream or Suri Cruise's latest fashion disaster.
32
Vote
   




It's been exactly 10 years since Chris Carter boldly transplanted The X Files into cinemas, and fans like me have been aching for a repeat silver screen outing. The series ended with a pretty crazy cliffhanger - Mulder embracing his spiritual side and convincing Scully that those Monster-of-the-week episodes weren't just a Scooby-style figment of someone's imagination. Oh, and that impending alien invasion that was going to coincide with the Mayan prediction of the end of the world in 2012.

Lots of unanswered questions when the show ended in 2002. You'd think Chris Carter might want to pick up where he left off, maybe give us loyal X-Philes some answers?

No.

Instead, after 6 years of waiting, we are rewarded with a meandering character study featuring two actors clearly both so uncomfortable and unfamiliar in their roles, that the entire theatrical experience feels like an eavesdropped warm-up rehearsal at best. It's difficult to know where to start when critiquing a film that should have been so promising that it's all all the more disappointing when there's little to redeem it. Firstly, the storyline is paper-thin, clichéd, and suffers from soggy pacing, and the sub-par use of plot devices to link characters and events seem unnecessary and tired by the end of the film. We've seen some amazing MOTW episodes, but based on the trailers, this seemed so much grander in its scale that most audiences were expecting a resolution to the mytharc storylines.

The plot takes a distant backseat to the character development, and the movie feels like more like it wants to be a mood piece. But this is ruined by the sparkless dialogue, characters that seem out of place and a spectacular waste of talent - in particular that of Billy Connolly, who seems to have stumbled in from another movie set by accident while on LSD rather than contributing anything noteworthy to the film.

The movie's only saving grace is its excellent photography, showcasing the picturesque, snowy backdrops of British Colombia in Canada. Cinematographer Bill Roe's skill with sweeping, majestic aerial and wide shots really bring the cold, bleak landscape to life while pinpointing the isolation and desolation each character exposits. This mood ultimately becomes both the heart and backbone of the film, and it's the only thing that draws you in as a viewer given that even though everyone is running around, chasing people in cars and firing guns, the movie is going nowhere and getting there at an excruciating pace.

Given that the film's entire theme relies on parading its characters' undeveloped emotions for 90 minutes, it's safe to say that this was a movie purely crafted for X-Files fans, although its fan-fiction-style execution is an embarrassment as far as Carter's bafflingly pedestrian directing and writing styles are concerned. If you weren't a fan of the series, this movie is unlikely to make you a convert, regardless of how pretty the scenery is. This is not an X-Files movie; this is a "look how much fun we had catching up" movie/cast and crew reunion party. Avoid, and wait until 2012 for the worthy sequel you know is being developed as we speak.
18
Vote
   


Marvel-Ous? Maybe Not

March 22nd 2009 04:45


The bar for superhero movies has definitely been raised, and without a doubt that's almost exclusively attributed to choosing lesser-known, often indie directors to direct these movies (okay, so Sam Raimi is a notable exception, but he was not known for superhero movies). It allowed alternative directors to put their own spin on an already established story; sometimes it worked and became iconic, like Tim Burton with Batman. Other times it was completely and utterly panned (e.g. um, Joel Schumacher with Batman


[ Click here to read more ]
31
Vote
   


More Posts
1 Posts
1 Posts
2 Posts
4 Posts dating from March 2009
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

The Film Geekette's Blogs

I have no other blogs :(
Moderated by The Film Geekette
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]