What do Fred Astaire, SNL, and Dan Brown have in common?

...They've all been a part of my weekend. I'm once again going to pick up my goal of blogging more frequently by chattering about what's recently been in front of me. They are three mediums, and certainly three very different pop icons, but between last night and this morning, they've all been in front of me.

I honestly don't know that I've ever seen a Fred Astaire movie. I'm a big Gene Kelly fan, so I may have seen Astaire in a movie with Kelly, but as far as the famed Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers go, I don't know that they've ever actually crossed my path. Anyway, the recent abundance of oldie movies that I've been seeing in film classes have inspired me to keep it up on the weekends. Last week I watched Some Like It Hot, which I had heard of but certainly had to see it. I wanted to find out why it was being called the "best comedy of all time" by AFI. Anyway, this week, I grabbed Swing Time with Astaire and Rodgers off the library shelf. It was really quite sweet, in that old "swell romance" kind of 30's musical kind of way. And, man, can they dance. Once again I feel inspired to take tap lessons... Who knows, maybe I'll actually do it next summer. This week in my Intro to Film class, we are watching and discussing Singing in the Rain. I couldn't be more thrilled and I feel fairly certain it's going to make me want to see Anchors Away, another favorite, yet again. Anyway, that I know of, Swing Time didn't have any TOTALLY FAMOUS songs or dance numbers in it, although I can't say I really know what Astaire (and Rogers) are most famous for. Anyone know...? I guess there's the scene where he dances on the ceiling and walls, but are there any other pictures he did that are pegged on that "OMG how have you not seen ____" list?

Also, last night, my mom and I started watching Death on the Nile, a film based on an Agatha Christie novel and starring an amazing group of actors like Maggie Smith, Bette Davis, David Niven, Mia Farrow, Olivia Hussey, Angela Lansbury... and on and on. We haven't finished it yet, but the whole time we were watching the first half, I was just sitting there ABSOLUTELY loving every minute of it. More on that when I've seen the rest!

Anyway, after that came the wonderful weekly comedy fest that is Saturday Night Live. I was thinking back and I realized that i have seen absolutely every episode of SNL since around 2005 - the first episode I DVRd was when Catherine Zeta-Jones was hosting... yes, I still remember. So, yes, my family is a big fan of the show. We've watched actors and actresses come and go, the Weekend Update desk change hands, sat through skits with glazed eyes thinking 'this isn't funny,' and split our sides laughing. Last night was a good episode. It had a fabulously weird Samburg Digital Skit: Throwing things on the ground reminded me of the "punching people while eating" sketch that still makes me laugh. The host was Ryan Reynolds, although I can't say I saw him that much. It was great to see them using "what the....?" musical guest Lady Gaga, who, I must say, I appreciate in a new way after the episode. It also had the feel of a Season Finale, with celebrities popping up left and right. My mom and I were going "is that really Madonna?!" for about 10 minutes, and then it was Elijah Wood (who knows why), and Scarlett Johanson (no big surprise as she's married to Reynolds). The skits were funny, Seth's news was great, and I doubt I will ever forget Andy in a bubble outfit.

Oh, and Drew Barrymore and Regina Spektor next week... could it get any better? Drew is hilarious, and I absolutely LOVE Regina Spektor's voice.

So that was midnight last night - or rather, this morning. Anyway, when I woke up after a nice doze today, I decided to tackle the last 100 pages of Dan Brown's latest giant bestseller, The Lost Symbol. I feel a bit torn between the book, mainly between the fact that I have always like Brown's addictive writing (even the lesser known ones like Deception Point), that the man is simply an irresistible phenomenon of an author, that the book is about D.C. and the Masons (which I find really interesting)... and all the relentless teasing he's been getting lately. A prime example of this teasing is this article, which is really quite hilarious. However, I think I had that article's tone of voice a little too much in my head... to the point that I couldn't fully appreciate the book I had looked forward to and was enjoying. Anyway, I would give the book four stars out of five... it was interesting, but felt like it needed a little tightening up. It didn't have the urgency and pace of his other books, and got a bit too bogged down in the creepiness of the bad guy and the interesting-ness (I know that's not a word) of Robert Langdon. However, I really liked a lot of the points the book made, and found the information about Masons and Noetic Science particularly fascinating. It's always cool to learn some fun facts, like the bit about the recurrence of 13 on the US National Seal. Furthermore, there was one bit at the end (I don't think it really gives anything away, but here's a SPOILER warning just in case) that I want to remember, because it captures something very well:

Two heads are better than one... and yet two heads are not twice better, they are many, many times better. Multiple minds working in unison magnify a thought's effect... exponentially. This is the inherit power of prayer groups, healing circles, singing in unison, worshiping en masse. The idea of universal consciousness is no ethereal New Age concept. It's a hard-core scientific reality... and harnessing it has the potential to transform our world. This is the underlying discovery of Noetic Science. What's more, it's happening right now. You can feel it all around you. Technology is linking us in ways we never imagined possible: Twitter, Google, Wikipedia, and others - all blend to create a web of interconnected minds. [...] And I guarantee you, as soon as I publish my work, the Twitterati will all be sending tweets that say 'learning about Noetics,' and interest in this science will explode exponentially. (Brown, 504).

Yup, that's pretty much it. Articulate and interesting stuff. Feel free to comment on anything I've brought up. Cheers :)

Quick-fire movie review: (500) days of Summer

This review is long overdue to say the least - I saw (500) Days of Summer before I went to Canada for my cousin's wedding in mid-August... but it's the kind of film that was so good, I feel obliged to review it, even if it has been a while. Since time has elapsed, I'm going to focus on the parts of this film that have stayed with me for over a month, not only telling you why it was good, but why it was memorable.

Honestly, this is probably one of the best films of the year, which I say knowing that the "movie season" (which in my mind leads up to the Oscars in February) is only about half over. It was enjoyable, well-crafted, thoughtful, intelligent, well-acted, cinematically creative, funny, sweet... I could list adjectives for another paragraph. The premise is simple, as the poster says: "This is not a love story, This is a story about love." In other words, as per the beginning of the film itself, "This is a story of boy meets girl, but you should know up front, this is not a love story."

(500) Days of Summer takes everything you think you know about the rom com/chick flick/girly film and turns it on its head. It is from the boys perspective. Depending on how you look at it, it doesn't necessarily have a "happy" ending. It is optimistic and at the same time, completely realistic. I saw it with an extremely diverse group of people - male, female, different ages and preferences - and everyone liked it. How many times can you say that, honestly?

A few moments from the film stand out vividly in my mind, and perhaps, by describing these and the effect they had on me, I will be able to communicate this film's beauty and power. Of course, if you haven't seen it and don't want to know any of this before you do see it, feel free to stop reading any time.

Moment #1:

"She only loved two things. The first was her long dark hair. The second was how easily she could cut it off and feel nothing."

First of all, I love this writing. But even more than that, this simple line illustrates the power of characterization that these filmmakers have. A few sentences of narration, right from the beginning, of odd anecdotal information, and we know exactly who we're dealing with. Furthermore, this line shows one thing I found very unique and powerful about the film, the characterization of "the girl" - Summer. This is not a typical chick flick chick. She does not melt at the sight of her soulmate, but RUNS from commitment. Sound familiar? I'm only describing every guy to ever grace the silver screen in a romantic comedy. The role reversal was one of this film's most powerful weapons, and quite frankly, it was refreshing.

Moment #2:

Expectations versus Reality

A very important sequence in the film is when our main character is invited to Summer's house for a party after not seeing her for some time. In filming the time leading up and through the party, the camera changes to a split-screen, marked on one side "Expectations" and the other "Reality." Before our very eyes, two scenes are acted out simultaneously, the way that Tom hopes things will go with Summer (Hint: she's thrilled to see him and shows it) and the way things actually go (Not the same). Wow. I mean, I've never seen such purely psychological filmmaking. It might sound odd, but even though it's only in this one scene, the technique totally works. It grabs our attention. It shows us what we do with our own minds. Just wow.

Moment #3:

"I'm the hero of this story, I don't need to be saved!"

This line comes from one of the songs on the film's soundtrack, "Hero," by Regina Spektor (who's voice I am COMPLETELY in love with). Usually, I don't like songs that are on a film's soundtrack. I am enamored with musical scores, but unless the song is iconic (in which case it's usually overused), it just doesn't draw my attention. The (500) Days of Summer soundtrack is a completely different matter. Almost all of the songs were vaguely familiar, but not well-known. They fit my mood, my personality, and most importantly, the scene they were placed in. After downloading it, a few songs in particular have caught my fancy, most notably the two by Spektor, one by Feist (of 1234/Apple ad fame), and haunting melody by France first lady Carla Bruni. The line I quoted comes from my favorite song, and in so many ways, summarizes what this film is about. As I've already said, this movie turns Hollywood on its head. Boy meets girl, but girl and boy don't make it together. The story doesn't end at "love at first sight." Gah, I just love the lyric and everything it represents.

Moment #4:

(MAJOR SPOILER)

Autumn

A great movie needs a great ending, and boy did this one deliver. If you know the film, you know what I'm talking about, the moment where it all pays off: Autumn, a quirky, unexpected and yet *perfect* way to finish. I don't have much to say about this, but to pay homage to it. These filmmakers sure know what they're doing.

Dumbledore, We will fight for you tonight!

The wait is over. Tuesday night was a sleepy, well-worth-it feast of awesomeness. I'm talking, of course, about the midnight release of the much-anticipated sixth and third-to-last Harry Potter film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. In a nutshell, it was FABULOUS. Being back at Hogwarts was as magical as I would have expected. Quite simply, Half-Blood Prince delves into Lord Voldemort's past through a series of memories. We learn who he is, and what Harry will have to do to kill him. Meanwhile, inside Hogwarts, hormones rage, while outside, Death Eaters pillage. I came home from the film at 3:30 AM and had a head full of thoughts, ready to be transformed into blog form... so we'll see how many of those opinions stayed with me in the day since. I'm going to assume you've either read the book, seen the film, or don't care about being spoiled if you're reading this, so please continue with this understanding in place.

I always love midnight or opening showings of films because the audience is very engaged. The movie means a lot to the people who show up to these showtimes - otherwise they would not have waited 3+ hours in line (or in our case, thankfully, in the auditorium itself). The atmosphere of excitement and anticipation was nearly tangible in our theater. First of all, I found out that our particular auditorium - #4 - was the first to sell out, so the fans in their were probably some of the more dedicated of the lot. People were dressed up (we had a great Dumbledore and an awesome Mad-Eye Moody), sporting T-shirts and Hogwarts colors, posing for photos by a cardboard cutout of Harry that some awesome person brought in, and even dueling, wizard-style, in the aisles. There were deafening cheers when the projector was first turned on, when the trailers started, for each individual trailer, when the WB symbol came up, AND when the HP logo appeared. (I'm serious about the cheering - the decibel levels in our theater would have rivaled a rock concert!) People literally laughed out loud at every funny moment, gasped when it was scary, whistled at romantic moments, and said "aww" when characters were sad. As an audience, we were a living, breathing extension of the film, as much AT Hogwarts, as if we had leaned into our own Penseive and found ourselves among the characters we love so dearly.

On to the film itself... First off, I simply have to say that the movie was unexpectedly funny. Hilarious, even. I hardly stopped laughing, giggling, or chuckling heartily until the final climactic 20 minutes. HBP is rated PG, the first film to not be PG13 since the much lighter first and second films. Of course, under the laughter, the darkness was still there - as the opening sequence, development of Tom Riddle, and tragic ending will attest, but there was a comedic lens present for much of the 2 hours and 33 minutes. Rupert Grint proved, once again, to be a master of comedy... but Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and even Michael Gambon stretched their comedic muscles as well. Overall, this was excellent. I don't think I've had this much plain ol' FUN in a HP movie to date. There were a few laughs that I think they could have done without - for a few moments it felt like the filmmakers just weren't taking it seriously... But overall, it was a great direction for them to take. The two Deathly Hallows movies are going to be so emotionally intense and action packed that perhaps it was good to get in a bit of comedy before we hurtled in the other direction.

Let me take a step back. Overall, surveying the entire film, I LOVED it. Many more of the favorite moments of the book seemed to be represented on film (compared to the other movies) - they really managed to fit a lot in. Parts that I would have guessed would fall by the wayside in favor of the main plot were there, which was awesome. I'm not sure if I'd call it my favorite movie - "favorites" are always hard for me to choose, and I'd have to see it again when I'm fully awake to be able to determine just how fantastic it is... But it was certainly better than OotP, and certainly 100% enjoyable. Unlike other films, I've had a fun time lately listening to others' opinions - friends, critics, and strangers alike. In exiting the theater on Tuesday night (well, actually Wednesday morning), I heard a surprising amount of disappointment. The girl behind me said something akin to "what the hell was that?" - which did surprise me. In a twist, though, most of my friends who are HARCORE fans of HP are more than thrilled - calling it the best film yet, their favorite, absolutely praising it to the MAX. Critics seem to lean in this direction as well, calling it the best Potter yet, praising the script, acting, cinematography, etc. Not to be discriminating, but I definitely lean toward the opinions of the people who live and breath Harry Potter, as well as those who know what good movies are made of, versus those from whom I've heard dislike. I'd like to have a conversation with someone who didn't like the movie, to find out the specific faults they found.

Along those lines, though, I'd like to point out a particular attitude I have hard among my HP fans that makes me rather happy. I have heard many comments akin to "I LOVED IT! I have a few issues or things I would've changed, but overall, it was AWESOME!" This is how you have to approach books -> movies. There are going to be changes you don't like, parts they left out, or things that didn't translate... but if you get caught up in nitpicking each and every one of these, you'll have a very disappointing experience! In the end, you have to let go, realize that FILM and TEXT are two entirely different mediums, and go along for the ride. For me, there is such a thrill in seeing Hogwarts brought to life - however they choose to do it - that I see no point in ruining the experience by griping about what wasn't there. Sure, in 30 years, some filmmaker might decide to remake the HP films, or they might do a miniseries in which they bring EVERY moment on the page to life, or pigs may fly... but for now, this is what we have to work with. ENJOY IT!

Having said this, hopefully I've made clear that I liked the film and am able to see past any issues I had. That's not to say I didn't have issues. I would like to take a moment to go through the couple of things I would've liked changed, in a perfect world. One of the biggest complaints has to do with the scene at the Burrow, in which the dear little Weasley house gets attacked by Bellatrix Lestrange and Fenrir Greyback, Harry and Ginny attempt to fight them off, and the entire house is engulfed in flames. This scene is NOT in the book, and was deliberately added for the film. I knew this was coming - it was reported probably a year ago on Leaky, and I was surprised when I heard about it. I do understand why it was in there and the purpose it served, from a filmmaking perspective particularly... In just that small little scene, the stakes were raised, and it they managed to show that the danger was everywhere, that our heroes were not immune. The romantic plot was advanced. Etc. And it was a cool scene, cinematically - with the swirling grasses, Ginny and Harry fighting, the spells flying back and forth... But, as I've heard discussed, this goes against the book, was not necessary, and disproves JKR's adamant rule that the Burrow is a safe haven for Harry that will not be touched (until DH). Overall, though, I would have liked to see this screen-time used somewhere else. The movie is already quite long, so if they could have displaced this time with a more worthwhile scene, I would have been happier (more on this in a moment).

Additionally, as I've already said, the comedy was a little stretched at points - there were plenty of moments that were funny, and were made even funnier by a few good quips and good acting... but at a certain point, it felt like a bit much. I think the film needed a few more dramatic punches. In other words, it needed to be PG13, and Yates and Kloves needed to take it a bit more seriously. This came to a head, for me, in the movie's end. The climactic cave scene was great, but it leveled out too much when they got back to Hogwarts. In the book, the final moments after Dumbledore's death are a mad rush of swirling emotion and pain. Everyone is fighting, it's not clear who is injured or dead, Snape has betrayed them all, Harry shouts coward, and then the cool anger of "Don't call me coward" brings it all to an tearful yet determined end. THIS NEEDED TO BE STRONGER. I would have liked to see the Burrow scene removed in favor of a bit more action at the end. Hermione, Ron, Ginny, Neville, Luna, as well as the rest of the Order should have been fighting. The stakes needed to be raised in order to throw us properly into the raw world of DH. I am personally of the opinion that Dumbledore's funeral would have been stunning on film. The scene they had in place worked, but it didn't pack the punch I would have liked to see. In short, the ending of the film didn't take my breath away, as I would have liked.

But back to what I did like for a moment. The acting was SUPERB. Everyone felt more comfortable in their characters. Daniel was the strong Harry, resigned to his fate of the Chosen One, accepting his responsibility, the danger, and yet still a student living out his time at Hogwarts. He loses his mentor but turns his pain and heartbreak into determination to win out over Voldemort. Rupert was hilarious, Ron in every way, confused about his feelings, awkward at Quidditch, and yet able to come into his own in time for his emotionally charged role in DH. Emma's acting has improved in leaps and bounds. The breathless speech and eyebrow-acting were both nearly gone from her perforamnce. I felt for her in her pain, in her platonic love for Harry, and her not-so-platonic love for Ron. Michael Gambon finally stepped it up as Dumbledore, returning to the beloved character of the books instead of the throw-Harry-against-the-wall stranger that we had seen from him before. Jim Broadbent as Slughorn was hilarious, perfect, magical, well-cast in every way. And then there's Tom Felton, who I daresay stole the film as the dark and haunted Draco Malfoy. Between "knowing" him from Twitter (and consequently feeling more like he's a "real person" out there), and the turn that his character naturally takes in this part of the story, I sympathized with him like never before. He was no longer the archetypal bully, the comedic relief, the snivelly ferret we had seen. He was incredible. And then there's Alan Rickman, Robbie Coltrane, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonahm-Carter, newbie Helen McCrory, Bonnie Hunt... all who stepped up their game, gave their all, and threw down the gauntlet in preparation for DH.

Yes, I'm mentioning DH a lot. It's hard to think of this film without moving that train of thought straight along to the final two films that are currently in production. It's hard not to think of the end. In a lot of ways, this film served as the Empire Strikes Back to Return of the Jedi... It set up the final chapter. This is the first film to come to theaters since the final book's publication, and I think it showed. The end is in sight, though still two years away. We are headed on the path that will take us to the walk into the forest, the final battle with Voldemort, to 'All is Well." *sniffle*

But we're not there yet.

As one final note, the soundtrack nerd in me has to get a word in. I'm not a huge fan of Nicholas Hooper's work - (I'm actually a bit glad he's not scoring DH and hope with every fiber of my being that we get John Williams back). His music is just a bit on the 'meh' side. It's beautiful, don't get me wrong... But unlike some movies, in which the music blends in effortlessly yet stands alone beautifully, it's not as melodic and theme-heavy as I'd like to see. The Weasley and Slughorn themes are great, as is the track "In Noctem," but what does this guy have against Hedwig's Theme? That's one beautiful piece of music and I would have liked to hear it a bit more.

So, I think that's it from me. Without a doubt I will see the film again with my parents - we may wait to see it in 3D IMAX after July 29, if I have the patience, and we'll see how my opinion changes with a second or third viewing. Perhaps the next time I re-read the book, I'll find other issues or be disappointed by something that didn't make it in the film, but for now, I'm pretty satisfied and hope HBP KICKS ASS in the box office this week. (It did $22 million in midnight releases, beating The Dark Knight!) Other than that, I want to ask for comments! If you saw the movie, tell me what you think below! What did you like? Not like? Feel free to agree or disagree with anything i said!

Cheers! <3

Michael Bay, take a chill pill...

Okay, I am going to fully admit that I should have written this last weekend, shortly after seeing the movie. My mind was whirring with blog thoughts as soon as I walked out of the theater. But, alas, here I am, a week later. So, here goes.

Before I say anything, I must defer to, reference, and worship two epic pieces of writing by critic Roger Ebert. Both refer to Transformers, so I'm not sending you off on a wild goose chase, and I highly recommend you take a moment to read. (You will laugh, I promise you).
His official review, and His more general blog about the film

Now, first off, I did not hate the second Transformers film the way Ebert did. Although, I don't think it's possible to hate it as much as he did. Overall, I thought it was fun, loud, probably a bit much but an overall "okay/pretty good" movie. I do recognize several points of Ebert's as highly valid - but I'll come back to this.

I've said this before with another movie, but I'm going to reiterate the point. Transformers is the kind of movie where you have to know what you're walking into. Don't expect more than you're going to get... this is an action film, designed around a TOY (Hasbro is listed with the production companies, for Pete's sake), with CGI Robots as many of the main characters, and a simple melodramatic plot to fill out the rest. It is full of action sequences, explosions, loud noises, and thumping music. This movie is not about PLOT or emotions. If you saw and liked the first Transformers film, you will probably enjoy this one as well. It will not be life-changing (and I would definitely say it's not as good as the first, which I really thought was fairly good), but overall, it was a pretty fun way to spend two and half hours.

One thing I highly admire is the increasingly accurate ability to give non-human, computerized characters a great deal of "realness." While this movie doesn't come close to, say, WALL-E, (which was incredible...) I do feel somewhat attached to characters like Bumblebee and Optimus Prime, and even the little "dog" bot from this film. Additionally, I am of the opinion that Shia LaBeouf (whose name I always have difficulty spelling) is a gifted young actor with a long career ahead of him, and I have to say, is a guy whom I highly admire. I have a few pet peeves with Megan Fox in real life, but her character was just fine for a hot girl required to run around a lot and then look lusty.

So, I would say that this is a great FUN summer movie, which is clearly destined to make loads of money. If you want to see it, go for it! Don't let reviews like Ebert's scare you away. But make sure you're not holding any high (or even low) expectations for the film. Just go and enjoy the spectacle.

Now, to address a few of the points that Ebert makes, particularly in his more general blog post (this part may be more relevant if you've seen the movie already...) Michael Bay is a bit out of control. With the first film, at least he strung together the big action sequences with a fairly interesting plot. With this one, I'd say it was the other way around. Plot pieces were just thrown in there - some scenes, like Ebert says - could easily have come from another movie. However, I don't think this movie is the pinnacle of Hollywood's big overblown CGI phase. After all, just look at the trailer for 2012, a movie from Roland Emmerich, a man who is easily competing for the title of Hollywood's biggest computer-generated-pyromaniac... (Go on, take a look - I'll wait.)

Second, YES, this movie will make a LOT of money. I mean, it did $201 million in the first five days of release, a number that is only just shy of The Dark Knight (I'm still a bit peeved that a movie like Transformers could even come CLOSE to touching The Dark Knight, but oh well.) But, I'd like to point out that the movie likely (and with good reason) cost more than $200 to make.... so they're probably just starting to earn it back. Along that line, I was a bit stunned when watching the credits to see that the film had FOUR producers AND another FOUR executive producers (including Michael Bay himself and Steven Spielburg somewhere in that list). It's hard to believe how many people it took to fund this film. But, back to my point. This film will probably continue to keep making a lot of money. I mean, all the way to Harry Potter's release soon (wait for it - SQUEEEE!), it's one of the only big Blockbusters that will potentially reach a broad summer audience on the market right now. But, really, money doesn't tell you that much. After all, worse films (*cough*Spiderman3*cough*) have made oodles of cash.

Ebert discusses in detail the way this film "assaults the senses." In all honesty, this may be an age barrier. I found the booming sound effects and soundtrack to be exhilarating, to add to the adrenaline of the movie. Along these lines, I just want to address the structure of the film. YES, there are many action sequences, not just ONE climactic scene... And YES, it is awfully long. But, honestly, for me, it just kind of hit a plateau of action, keeping the level of excitement high, carrying you along to the end. I didn't notice time dragging at all, really.

So, this is becoming a ramble now and I will wrap it up. Yes, this movie is ACTION-PACKED (it may redefine that term). Yes, it is BIG and COMMERCIAL and BLOCKBUSTER-y. And, yes, critics are NOT going to like it. But, I saw it, liked it, and will probably see more Transformers flicks if (or should I say when?) they're released. I'm not going to say you "should" or "shouldn't" see this film, but it certainly started the big summer movie season off with a BANG.

Cheers. <3>

Star Trek is cool again!

<-- In my opinion, this is still the best poster. I just can't wrap my head around the gray abstract swooshiness in the official one they decided to go with. Too hard to tell what it is.

Okay, I'm sick and supposed to be doing homework but finding myself unable to really think. Voila, I'm turning to blogging. Maybe this will get my brain warmed up and allow me to study next. But let me get to the point. This past weekend, I went to see the new Star Trek as planned... and I really only have one word:

AWESOME.

But one lonesome word would make a boring blog, wouldn't it? Hmm... Let me see if I can scrounge up a few more words about this fantastic revival/sequel/origin flick.

I knew nothing going into this movie. Well, not nothing - but pretty darn close to it. I had heard of Spock and Kirk... I knew that Kling'ons, well, existed (though I couldn't have told you what/who they were), and I had probably heard of the USS Enterprise somewhere along the line. But, SERIOUSLY, my Star Trek knowledge was limited to a few jokes about the redshirts (who always get killed), my crazy history teacher from 10th grade who was certifiably obsessed with it, and a few moments of flipping on the TV on Saturday nights and noticing the original series was on, before switching over to watching Legend of the Seeker.

So, then there were a few more bits and pieces of info... Like the fact that Zachary Quinto, who has managed to make a psychotic serial killer vaguely likable on Heroes for several years, was in the film - not to mention a few other names I knew... Eric Bana, Karl Urban. Oh, and JJ Abrams, who made Lost sane (and AMAZING) for its first season, was directing. After this came the pre-relase buzz... the fact that, about a week before release, when early critical reviews came in, Star Trek had 100% on rotten tomatoes. (It still has a 95%). Then there was the growing buzz that Star Trek could possibly have a better first weekend than Wolverine (it didn't, fyi). Overall, it was slowly shaping up to be something SPECIAL.

Thus... [Yup, those IB Papers are still on my mind]... I went into Saturday's movie with a very optimistic mind. I was sick and mad about being sick, I had been studying all day, and I was ready to have some FUN. I was excited by the people who had already seen it on Thursday and Friday, and who had come out raving. I was ready for a great film. And that's what I got! Star Trek is an all around EXCELLENT film. Sure, the time traveling plot is a bit confusing (Damon Lindelof, one of the chief writers on Lost had something to do with the script, so what do you expect?)... but I think this film will perform MIRACLES for the franchise. As Matt Lewis (Harry Potter's Neville Longbottom) said excitedly on Twitter today, Star Trek is cool again. :)

One point I want to emphasize and paraphrase comes from a recent Entertainment Weekly that had a big Star Trek spread. It's clearly been necessary to kick-start a few old franchises lately. As shown by Casino Royale for Bond and Batman Begins for Bruce Wayne, studios are finding origin stories particularly useful for this... Going back to the beginning seems to be a successful way of getting a NEW audience involved in an OLD story. With the two examples I've already cited, darker and ediger seemed to be just what the audience ordered, but this wasn't an option for Star Trek. After all, isn't one of the pillars this franchise was formed on OPTIMISM? So, the true beauty of Star Trek 11 (though it's not being called that) is that it DID go back to the beginning, it DID renew the story for a new generation (while keeping old trekkies involved), and it DID utilize state-of-the-art CGI and new younger actors to make it accessable... but it didn't HAVE to be dark and full of deep investigations into human psychology.

Of course, people are already comparing the time Star Trek when was founded - under Kennedy - and our current time - under Obama. This is interesting, and there are a lot of points to be made here, but it's important to remember that this film was started 3 years ago, when there was very little HOPE or CHANGE to be found in our country. In many ways, doesn't this speak to Star Trek's strength? The ability to apply to over 40 years of contemporary issues! The ability to resonate with audiences from my age to younger viewers and up to people who can remember the show's beginning!

Now, I'm headed off into the land of tangents and generalized statements, but I just want to say clearly once and for all... THIS IS A MUST-SEE MOVIE. If you're an old fan, I'm pretty darn sure you'll appreciate a bit more screen-time with your favorite characters, and if you're new to the series, like me, you'll have a heck of a ride. This movie was solid and leaves me begging for more. I hope to see it again, hope they make more movies with this cast/director, and am currently considering going back to watch some of the older episodes just to get a bit more into it all.

Truthfuly... What else could filmmakers want than $72 million worth of fans with similar sentiments? Bravo!

Cheers. <3

Unleash the beast

This is a few days late now, but I wanted to get in a blog with my own thoughts about Wolverine. After all, the summer movie season is almost as big as Oscar time (though very different in oh so many ways) and I'm planning on seeing - and blogging about - lots of films this summer.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is the type of film that is what you make of it. How you perceive it depends on the expectations you have riding on it, the veil of criticism you watch it through (or the ability to choose not to do this), the shield you can create to deflect the negativity coming from main-stream critics... In short, it can be as good as you want it to be. Wolverine is not going to win critical acclaim. People are not going to praise its mastery and analyze its every scene. No, they're going to see it, enjoy it, tell their friends, and - boom - one opening weekend and $87 million later, it will be yet another typical BIG summer film.

A quick bit of history. My dad and I love comic book movies; it's kind of our thing. My dad used to read a bunch of DC comics when he was younger and I think he enjoys the memories. Meanwhile, I just like the genre. It's a fabulous suspension of reality, a great setup for fun action, adventure, romance, and humor, and, in short, a good FUN movie. Now, like I said, my dad read DC - he doesn't know much about Marvel comics, of which X-Men is one. However, when I was younger and first venturing away from Arthur on PBS and onto Saturday morning cartoons, among other things, I began watching an X-Men show - I'm pretty sure it was X-Men: Evolution, though my memory is a bit fuzzy at this point. The animation in the main photo on that article looks right, but I certainly couldn't tell you a single thing about the plot. Anyway, somewhere along the line, my dad and I rented and really enjoyed the first two X-Men movies which were out on DVD (I really recommend these if you haven't seen them).

If you know anything about the series, you know that X-3 was a big disappointment. Much like Spiderman 3, the series changed directors and it ALL fell apart. The plot was scattered, confusing, and destructive (characters just DIED left and right - aggh!). I don't remember it all that well (I must have blocked it out, grr) but I remember that it was a mess. So, when I heard the rumor/news of another movie in the series - Wolverine - I took it with a grain of salt. It was getting to that "come on already" point in the series. Three, let alone four movies is risky territory. Now, that said, this long bit of rambling has been so you know where I'm coming from and where I WAS coming from when I walked into that theater last Saturday. I was excited for Wolverine, but I didn't have too many high hopes.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Hugh Jackman, especially as Wolverine. The character is sassy, bad-ass, and all around FUN to watch (notice that word coming up a lot?) I was expecting the BEST from him because I know that he always delivers above and beyond. So, when the movie leaked online about a month ago and everyone started trashing it, it didn't really alter my perception or expectations. I was still going to see it, no two ways about it, and I was either going to like it or not be crazy about it (the latter being less likely just because of the kind of movie watcher I am).

Thus... (I know that's a formal word but, heck, I've been writing a lot of formal IB essays lately - 42 pages handwritten, to be precise) ... you can see how I walked into this film. I had seen the explosion-after-explosion-after-fight-after-motorcycle-scene trailer, had seen Hugh's tree-trunk arms in Australia, and had seen him KICK ASS at the Oscars this year (please, oh please, bring him back again!). I wasn't expecting the Second Coming... I was expecting a FUN couple of hours.

And that's exactly what I got.

Wolverine left me grinning, what can I say? From the awesome character Gambit (whom I had never come across) to the (brief) appearance of Charlie (from Lost) aka Merry (from Lord of the Rings) aka Dominic Monaghan... and to, quite frankly, a pretty cool story of the evolution fo a superhero, it was a sweet movie. The explosions were crazy and loud, the fight scenes were intense, the romance was cheesy, the story/recurring metaphor was blatantly obvious... in short, it was a summer blockbuster that didn't even try to mask it's true nature. So, overall, I'd recommend the film, but only if you're willing to watch it for what it is.

A couple of more specific notes...

The soundtrack nerd in me is dying to say something about the music. Whereas the first three X-Men films were composed by Bourne alumn John Powell, this film was done by Harry Gregson-Williams, a man who is quick becoming one of my all time favorite artists. Second right now to, perhaps, only John Williams and Hans Zimmer, this man has a way with melodies. He's also done both Narnia films and the jaw-droppingly gorgeous Kingdom of Heaven soundtrack and I found myself itching to buy the Wolverine soundtrack when it was released yesterday. Nothing says summer like new soundtracks to listen to every week. [Next up, Star Trek by Lost composer Michael Giacchino, if I like the film, and Angels and Demons by Zimmer himself. Same order goes for movies - more on that in a minute!) I ABSOLUTELY LOVE the music from this film. It's so great, just beautiful and emotional, yet kind of mechanic... Williams really captured the true nature of the character and of the film.

About the ending... You heard me mention the online leak. Well, in an effort to still get nerdy fanboys to watch the movie more than once (or, I dunno, some other reason), Wolverine filmmakers tacked not one, nor two, but THREE endings on the movie, post-credits. The first is in all movie versions and [SPOILER] is the one with Stryker walking. The other two, however, are split... You'll only see one when you go. One is being called the "Deadpool" ending, in which Weapon XI sort of maybe might still be alive. (I didn't see this one). The other is the Asian bar scene, in which Hugh is drinking, not to forget, but to remember. I recently heard that this ending, while less "cool" than the one where the creepy bad guy blinks, may be setting up ANOTHER sequel... [END SPOILER]

But that brings me right into my next point... sequels. I've heard several rumors now. One is for another X-Men Origins film, but this time about Magneto (epic bad-ass played by Gandalf - I mean - Ian McKellen). As far as I can tell (IMDB here), this movie is being planned and is "in production," though there's currently not much being done. Now, more interestingly, recently, I began hearing rumors about a X-Men Origins: Wolverine sequel (What is that, X-Men Post-Origins?) This article can explain what I'm talking about much more than I could, but SPOILER ALERT if you haven't seen the film.

Anyway, that's the run-down. If you're reading this and you've seen it (or any of the other X-Men films), let me know what you think and which credit ending you got. While we're at it, let me know what you think of the comic book genre in general. :) Oh, and as a further question, what with Star Trek, Angels and Demons, and Terminator coming up in the next few weeks... the Summer Movie Madness is officially underway! What movie are you most looking forward to this summer? (Other than Harry Potter, because that's kind of a given with the people likely reading this).

That's it for me. I'm off to watch Lost - OMG only 3 more hours left this season!
Cheers. <3

YOUR Planet?!?

This Friday's movie night brought a vision of the planet's destruction - not by nuclear means, nor by global warming, but by aliens. As the second end-of-the-world AND alien-type movie I had seen recently (Knowing, being the first), my mind was busy with comparisons. Of course, the films are very different - one being a scattered mix of genres with few goals and little morals and the other being the remake of a campy 1950's flick... but, regardless, even without the similarities that did exist, I found The Day the Earth Stood Still to be a far better movie.

The movie centers around a scientist (played by Jennifer Connolly), who is dragged off in the middle of the night by government agents. She arrives at a Fort something-or-other, where she is put in a briefing room with lots of other scientists, and told of the fast approach of an Earth-destroying asteroid of some sort. They are given 1 hour as a countdown, and Manhattan as a target. While they fly out to the city, bracing for impact, nothing hits, until they start to see a glowing orb flying towards them, slowing down. The orb, a planet-like object, that seems to be roughly the size of a skyscraper, lands in Central park. Out of it comes - you guessed it - Alien Keanu Reeves. Long story short, Reeves has come to A) attempt to talk to us humans and B) judge if we (as a species) are worthy of remaining on the planet. He decides we aren't, and begins to initiate D-Day Armageddon. Now, I won't go much further than that in the off chance that you decide to actually see this movie - which I more or less recommend.

A few things struck me about this movie. First off, it was comfortable in its own skin. It knew it was an alien movie, and it didn't try to hide that fact. Sure, at some points, they took themselves too seriously (such as when Connolly's character emphatically states "Well, he must have had another body before he came to Earth.") But, more or less, they didn't try to hide that they were dealing with aliens invading and destroying the human race. In all, it was rather cool to have such a campy story done with such AWESOME CGI. I mean, though I haven't seen the 1950 version of the film, I can imagine how corny it would have been - strings still attached to the UFO, and all that. But to have something that requires such suspension of reality done in a way that actually makes it seem real... well, that just shows you how far filmmaking techniques have come in recent years.

Next off, it's interesting to consider WHY this film was made - both in its original day and age, and now. The basic premise of the destruction of the human race is that the Earth is a very valuable and fragile planet - one of the few (or only) in the universe that can support complex life forms. And yet, the human race has become so destructive that it doesn't deserve to remain in control of Earth. Thus, said alien civilization steps in and removes the parasitic humans. (I'm getting Matrix undertones, here, but more on that in a minute). I'm not sure if the 1950's version of the movie was the original time it was written, but if so, let's take a moment to consider history at the time. Nuclear destruction was on the forefront of everyone's minds and - with the Cold War really getting going - the destructive capabilities of humans were, indeed, starting to feel quite fearsome. Fastforward to the 21st century... mutual destruction is in the back of our minds, but not an open threat. Instead, global warming is hitting us at every angle. Worrysome weather, fearsome planetary changes... are we finally seeing the fruits of our destructive capabilities? In all, I'm surprised this movie got panned so much by critics and viewers because, though it doesn't have a driven plot with wit and twists, as we may look for in the creme-of-the-crop kind of films, it is EXTREMELY resonant for the day and age we are living in.

This said, since so many people did NOT see this film, I think it's important to reinforce the message it bore - for it's an important one to remember. The movie stressed that humans needed to CHANGE if we were to keep our planet and our lives. However, as John Cleese's character said so clearly, it is often on the brink of destruction that the full capacity for change is realized. I agree with this in many ways. But, in the world we're living it, what's the brink? Is it when the Hurricanes get so bad that they wipe out entire cities? When fires rage for weeks, taking homes and burning forests? When the very ozone layer we depend on to continue living starts disappearing? Because it's starting to look like we've hit that brink to me. So, in all, I thought this was an admirable film. It bore an important idea that I think we need to continue hitting people over the head with. It's a pity it got so little attention because I thought it was an overall fun ride (with cool CGI), and with a solid core idea.

Just for one last moment, I do have to comment on Keanu Reeves. As Craig Ferguson (who my mom and I watch a lot) is often pointing out, Keanu doesn't do much in the way of acting... In fact, between this film and his other famous roles - Speed and The Matrix, I'm not sure he does much more than look solemnly at the camera/villain/love interest for the entire movie.


<-- Keanu Reeves as Klaatu in The Day the Earth Stood Still and Neo in The Matrix.





That said, he worked in this role. He was an alien who was sent to destroy an entire species, only to have his eyes opened by the compassion that humans can show. Did he need to act much for that? Probably not.