Today's Column: don't give in to hype, that leads to the Dark Side

My last column for MovieScene (this year):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158331/column_de_hype_ontwaakt


I'm getting increasinly tired by people asking me to embrace the hype surrounding the new Star Wars movie. They shout 'just roll with it!', like a friggin' soccer droid, willfully ignoring the fact this hype will continue for a whole more year and might end up in fatal disappointment. Expectations are already soaring to outrageous heights, and it just seems totally unlikely any fan will ever get what they are currently hoping for. Unless they keep their expectations low of course, which the majority opts against, but I consider the best way to stay sane. Based on the few loose images and deplorable lack of context the teaser provides, vast legions of fans already believe this film will be on par with the original trilogy. Even though nobody still knows what it's all about. We don't know these characters and their situations, but that doesn't stop the die-hard believers from playing a long-term guessing game, which mostly consists of projecting their desires for this movie's plot and its place in the larger canon onto a handful of random shots, chosen mostly for instilling the feel of the good ol' days. The fans' eagerness is coupled with a frightfully obnoxious and zealously disturbing faith in J.J. Abrams, since he supposedly "rescued" Star Trek from falling into obscurity (even though that franchise is currently worse off than ever). Granted, his work on Star Trek showed he had more affinity with Star Wars, since both movies felt more like a Star Wars film than an actual Trek movie (which shows you just how little he cared and Trek was just another rung up the ladder to doing Wars for the man). But they didn't feel like a good Star Wars film. Abrams might be a self-proclaimed Star Wars fan as much as the common nerd-on-the-street, but that doesn't mean he'll automatically direct a fantastic new addition to the saga that will get everyone what they want. As goes for most major franchises, some of the worst stories have been created by people considering themselves major fans, but who still failed to grasp just what made a good installment, with dire results.

This teaser, which mostly consists of coupling legendary set pieces and vehicles with unknown new characters and questionable new gimmicks - I still haven't heard a satisfying theory as to what use two small additional sabers on the side could be - is not enough to make me cast off any doubt and go along with the hype. I prefer to take any new bit of information on the film, be it rumours or actual footage, with a grain of salt. And I would have thought most fans would have learned their lesson when they got swept away with the hype surrounding Episode I, which proved the folly of getting one's hopes up to such immeasurable and unrealistic heights. Maybe The Force Awakens turns out good - honestly, I hope so - but just to be on the safe side (which is the side between Light and Dark, mind you), I won't let the hype get me drunk on excessive joyful anticipation.

Today's Triple News: pure evil, corrupting the law and Inhuman

To boldly post news that no one has posted before (except on other movie sites):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156865/ed_harris_gecast_in_hbos_westworld

Westworld's cast keeps growing ever more impressive. That is to be expected, as talent draws talent and when you've got Sir Anthony Hopkins on your cast list you can get basically everyone. Ed Harris for example. Good choice. He's had experience in both westerns and Sci-Fi, and has played major villains before, so why not combine the three for him? I am worried about this 'Man in Black' character, who's supposed to be the definition of utter villainy. Aside from the fact that I don't recognize such a character decision from the original Michael Crichton movie, I know this exact same concept didn't pan out so good on another J.J. Abrams produced TV show, which 'lost' its quality the moment this aspect started to dominate the series. Westworld does deal with the philosophical rhetoric of good and evil in distinguishing artificial morality from our own and reflect our all too human flaws in the process, but why make it so literally black and white by adding a purely evil character into the mix? And what part does he play narratively? If he's dressed in black, my first bet would be the infamous Gunslinger (Harris does look a bit like Yul Brynner after all). But he's not intended to be purely evil; he's just driven by his original programming after shortcircuiting, doing what he was designed to do (shooting folks), but without the convenient security of an off-switch. Or will this series maybe also delve with the poor sequel Futureworld, in which there was a silly sinister ploy of replacing world leaders with robotic replicas? Could this Man in Black be behind a similar scheme? Many questions abound, but the quality of acting won't be in dispute. It's the writing we may have to worry about. Still human work, you can't hire robots for that.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156864/eerste_teaser_better_call_saul

Ten seconds of footage, that's what I call teasing. And we learn nothing new about plot or characters from this clip. Basically, it only confirms Saul Goodman is once again played by the impeccable Bob Odenkirk, who perfectly balances charming and conniving for the part. So far so good. Reading the basic plot description makes me a little hesitant though. There's more than just a few major parallels between this series and its glorious parent, Breaking Bad. Both follow the rise of small-time everymen who turn their respective talents into a way to make money, but find their humanity degraded in the process, hurting those around them for personal gain. And both shows co-star Jonathan Banks. Big difference is there's no clock ticking here, as the main character isn't dying. In fact, knowing he won't risk kicking the bucket before long (or better yet, at all) might also form an obstacle for being sucked into this story as much as we were into its predecessor. However, it's too soon to let cynicism run rampant and state Vince Gilligan is just repeating the success of Breaking Bad by merely tweaking its premise for Better Call Saul. I bet he has a few surprises in store for us yet. And if he doesn't, I won't go so far as to sue him for not living up to my expectations.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156880/maakt_marvel_inhumans

Seems Guardians of the Galaxy hit the right accords in terms of connecting with the audience, considering its swift and immense success. No wonder Marvel seeks to expand the cosmic part of the comic book universe for expanding its cinematic equivalent. Inhumans might work out just right for them. It's a whole other thing from the merry, rogueish Guardians, these ancient super powered Terran outcasts opting for self-imposed exile from their home planet in order to keep them from butting heads with humanity which would lead to great loss of life on both sides. It's basically 'X-Men on the moon', which is a good thing for Marvel as they're not allowed to introduce the term 'mutant' due to potential copyright infringement. Inhumans is the next best thing, different enough from similar premises. It's a more serious, darker corner of the Marvel universe though, so that might not sit well with the folks who were drawn in by Guardians. Or it will, just because of its differences. Personally, I was never a big fan of the Inhumans, they're a little too ethereal and devoid of humour for my taste. Their long history and ties with both terrestrial and extraterrestrial life seems hard to tell in a two-hour movie in a way that makes you really care about their plight. We're gonna have to wait and see whether Marvel can overcome such hindrances and make Inhumans work a good as they did the Guardians.

Today's Review: Revolution Season 1

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154609/revolution_seizoen_1_-_dvd_recensie

Here's another first for me at MovieScene: the review of a whole first season of a television series. It took me a while to sift through all 20 episodes plus a bunch of bonus features found on this set, and the fact it wasn't a great watch didn't help much. Writing a review based on 20 episodes is quite a challenge, and don't be surprised if you find my review a bit short accordingly (I agree it is, but there are word limits to uphold, which is why reviewing a whole season can be called a questionable endeavour at best).

The show in question is called Revolution, an action/adventure programme easily recognizable as a J.J. Abrams production . It cannibalizes Lost's format of overarching mysteries set in a world where bands of people prove unable to peacefully coexist in a fairly primitive environment, coupled with flashbacks to what their lives were like before the events that brought about the new status quo and their involvement in causing said situation, mixed with a bit of Walking Dead in terms of stakes of survival and violence, though of course never as gory as that show. Most characters appear like archetypal repeats of Lost too (there's even a fat nerd who used to be rich), though many of them aren't nearly as compelling as on that show. Revolution is passable television at best, but far from a quality show. Too bad for its hopes of continuous existence, since there's many a more appealing series on the air that ensures it won't be as enduring as Lost. I give it three seasons at best before its own plug gets pulled. Still, nice to see quality actors like Elizabeth Mitchell and Giancarlo Esposito are not lacking for work on telly.

Today's Triple News: bad guy, bad guy, bad directing choice?

Another threesome of news updates I posted on MS, one of them less than two hours old:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154135/nederlandse_regisseur_voor_remake_the_birds

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154127/donofrio_speelt_schurk_jurassic_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/154091/adam_driver_in_beeld_als_star_wars_schurk

Two bits of news appear almost identical except for the difference in names. Two bad guys cast (one close, at least) for major tentpole movies, and one director hired to direct a much dreaded remake of a much loved classic film. A Dutch director redoing a genre classic sounds eerily familiar to The Thing fiasco from only a few years back, where a rookie Dutchman (Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.) with hardly any directing experience got to direct a movie few people were looking forward to anyway. Needles to say that movie flopped: in fact, it lasted only two weeks in Dutch theaters. Was it the director or was it the idea of the remake on its own that made people opt for screening different fare? Probably a combination of both. Nevertheless, history now seems to be repeating itself, except the movie being remade is an even bigger classic from a truly legendary director. The project had been in the work for many years but nobody really dared to get it fired up until now. I'm not surprised, considering the producers involved. Michael Bay for instance, whose name alone should make people think twice about this film (will the birds explode?). Two other producers attached have been involved with nearly all of the recent remakes of various Eighties' horror franchises (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), all exercises in blatant redundancy. That's also not a good sign, considering The Birds is not that kind of horror flick, despite retaining a certain horrific element that does have the potential for bloody mayhem. Van Rooijen seems sure to take on more than he can handle, but unlike Van Heijningen, he does have more credits under his belt. Creating and directing the acclaimed Dutch TV series Penoza is probably his best card to play (I wouldn't know whether it's any good because I rarely watch Dutch series), though he has also done a few moody thrillers in the same vein as The Birds. Nevertheless, in all other respects he seems like yet another example of a foreign director being hired to direct an unneccessary, unwanted remake of a well remembered film that American directors won't touch for obvious reasons (José Padilha's RoboCop serves as the most recent adequate comparison). Time will tell whether Van Rooijen will do any better than those that went to Hollywood before him and came back with their tails tucked between their legs, instead of merrily continuing to exploit their success on home soil.

Two villains cast. One to battle dinosaurs (or is it vice versa?) and one to tackle Jedi. I cannot recall Adam Driver from seeing him in Lincoln (it was only a small part), but he certainly has a distinctive face. Comparing his upcoming role to the iconic Darth Vader is total studio rubbish of course, since nobody will ever come close to that again. They shouldn't even try and just go in their own direction, but that's not something I consider J.J. Abrams capable of doing. And when Abrams says Driver was his first choice, I tend togo in 'I don't care mode' straight away. Turning down great actors like Hugo Weaving and Michael Fassbender in favor of this guy is yet another telltale sign of Abrams' rampant mental instability. But admittedly I might just not have seen enough of Driver's past performances to make a balanced decision on whether he's right for joining the Dark Side. I am very likely clouded by my strong dislike for Abrams, who after raping Star Trek and shamelessly getting away with it does not feel like the best choice for the Galaxy Far, Far Away in my mind. Maybe Driver just happens to actually be a good actor and as such a decent choice for whatever this villain role is going to be. It's hard to deny he has a sinister face. Yes, you might justifiably accuse me of calling him ugly, sorry.

Now Vincent D'Onofrio I know at least. He's played a memorable villain before in one of my childhood favorites, Men in Black, where he played the grotesquely big bug in the Edgar-suit. That was one baddie that freaked me out as a kid! Also knowing his talents from playing Orson Welles in Ed Wood, I can say I know D'Onofrio has a rather diverse range as an actor, so I'm sure he can pull off playing a character of a similarly savoury nature in Jurassic World. I hate to resort to the term 'villain' when JP is concerned, as so far the Jurassic Park movies haven't featured true villains yet, only regular human beings driven by greed and profits. Of course, those are the true villains of our time, but compared to the regular notion of a movie villain they're just as human as the rest of us. The nature of D'Onofrio's part is still kept secret as most things JW are, most notably the dinosaur casting. A human rogue is good as a secondary element, but it's the dinosaurs the audience craves to see endangering the protagonists. I'll definitely not use the term 'villain' in connection with dinosaurs, as they are supposed to be animals acting natural (insofar as we think they might have done) or lashing out because they're driven to acts of aggression by human indecency. The only exception might be the Velociraptors, who, due to their supposed superior intelligence, are capable of making a seemingly rational choice between acting as villains or sticking to being mere animals instead. Whether such philosoraptors are again thrown in the mix in the case of Jurassic World remains to be seen, as rumours are going around their niche will soon be filled with Troodon instead, an even smarter species of small, pack-hunting predatory dinosaurs. I'm sure T-Rex will again return triumphantly though, for sure. Whatever choices of dino-casting director Colin Trevorrow makes, I'm positive 'safety is not guaranteed' (pun!) for D'Onofrio's character. That's what you get for playing a bad guy I suppose.

Today's News: Williams still interested in the galaxy, far, far away

Hot off MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148867/john_williams_terug_voor_star_wars_episode_vii


This is about as good as news around Episode VII can get at this stage. At least Williams never contributed to the increasing lack of quality in the Star Wars franchise, unlike some other people who were deeply involved. In fact, his scores for the prequel trilogy proved about as grand as the ones he composed for the original trilogy. Themes like Love Across the Stars (Episode II's sweeping love theme) and Battle of the Heroes (Episode III's epic Jedi duel theme) to my mind are as beautiful to listen to as the likes of the classic Princess Leia's Theme (Episode IV) or the bombastic Imperial March (Episode V), even though they may not be eligible to be considered as iconic because the movies they were made for are just not on the old levels in terms of quality. Williams has always delivered fabulous, rich scores for any film he's worked on, all the way from the Seventies straight until this day. There's no reason to fear he won't pull it off again. If there's someone who can successfully bridge the old trilogy, Lucas' prequel trilogy and now J.J. Abrams' new sequel trilogy, it's this guy, I have full faith in that. All other elements like plot, action and character development aside, in this regard Episode VII couldn't be in better hands. I don't need Kathleen Kennedy's or Abrams' own ass-kissing terminology to remind me of that. Williams' wonderful soundtracks have spoken for themselves throughout the years.

And just so you know, here's my top-5 of Williams' themes. Nobody should not be familiar with these awesome scores. Enjoy!

5: The Clash of Lightsabers
From: Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

4: The Lost World Main Theme
From: The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)

3: Raiders March
From: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

2: The Throne Room/End Titles
From: Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977)

1: Welcome to Jurassic Park
From: Jurassic Park (1993)

J.J. Abrams: to cowardly go where better men have gone before

Star Trek Into Darkness: **/*****, or 4/10

Warning! Here be spoilers! But who cares?!

I'm not having a good time lately. Star Trek Into Darkness has recently been released to critical acclaim and positive box office results. Tough luck for me, since now I have to continually remind people around me whay this is not a good thing, same as J.J. Abrams' previous “Star Trek” film (2009) was not a good thing. At least this time many Trekkies are agreeing with me J.J.'s involvement might not have been the preferred direction for the franchise to go in hindsight – a lot of my fanboy colleagues at first disagreed with me on J.J.'s previous monstrosity and ended up actually liking it, bunch of morons! – since many have a hard time accepting his take on Khan, which is a watered down, emotionally empty version of the original 1982 Trek classic The Wrath of Khan. And even Trekkies agree buggering their classics is not something that Trek should have to endure. But it does, and the general audience – bless their God given 'right to be stupid'! – loves J.J. for it.

Star Trek Into Darkness opens with an overly Spielbergian action climax á la Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is not surprising since it's well known that J.J. has always been inspired by Spielberg, as well as for his tendency to be blatantly derivative of the master's work if he can help it. The public finds Kirk, Spock and McCoy on M-class planet Nibiru where a giant volcanic eruption is threatening the surivival of the local humanoid species. Of course, Kirk cannot allow the Nibirians to be wiped out, even though the Prime Directive dictates non-involvement with non Warp drive equipped species. In essence this means Kirk should just let things happen as they happen and ignore the species' plight altogether. Which was the way Picard usually went for in TNG, if his crewmembers didn't screw it up for him. In this case, Kirk does the screwing up himself, saving the species but doing irreparable cultural damage when he's allowing them to see (and afterwards worship) the Enterprise in all its glory as it rises from the ocean. The audience doesn't get time to question what the hell it was actually doing underwater in the first place (well? What was it doing there?! You tell me!), except to show off a few cool shots having a starship do something that hasn't been done before, but only for the sake of looking cool as opposed to making narrative sense. Of course this infringement upon Starfleet's 'rule of rules' doesn't go unpunished and Kirk has his command taken away from him. Rightly so, since if this (and in fact the whole previous movie) demonstrates anything, it's that this particular Kirk is too young, too impulsive and too stupid to properly fit into a captain's chair. 

 

Luckily for Kirk however, Starfleet HQ is attacked and his friend and mentor Captain Pike is killed – no wheelchair with simple yes/no vocal interface for this timeline's Pike! – and Kirk can convince the admiralty to give him back the Enterprise and go on a manhunt for the terrorist behind the plot, a man named John Harrison, who is ultimately revealed to be Khan so soon into the movie that it doesn't really matter if I spoil it for you here (besides, there's a spoiler warning above, nerfherder*!). Kirk tracks the villain down to Q'onoS (but spelled 'Kronos', so people don't get confused aligning what they hear with what they see onscreen) where he beamed to after his last attack on Earth – nevermind Trek physics in this timeline, if it avoids lenghty story telling and swiftly gets “our heroes” where they need to go it works fine for Abrams – which ends up in an all too brief showdown with a bunch of Klingons (ugly with helmets, uglier without; but at least they speak something resembling Klingon) before Khan is arrested and taken back aboard ship, where the plot thickens. Or so Abrams would like us to think. Turns out Khan is just a puppet in a larger masterplan of a naughty Starfleet admiral who's out for a little 'coup d'etat' on the Federation for his own inexplicable but undoubtedly nafarious ends. And that's the film's biggest problem right there.

The main issue against STID in regards to Khan as an antagonist is that for the longest time he plays second fiddle to Peter Weller's villainous Admiral Marcus. It's not until Marcus is disposed of that Khan comes into his own. Until that time we have to make do with an overly militaristic old fart threatening to subvert Starfleet in order to... yeah, for what reasons exactly? Marcus' motivations remain rather vague. But then, an admiral who keeps a model of a top secret warship on his desk for all to see is hard to take serious anyway. At least Khan has clearer goals, and they are not even so ignoble. In fact, once Marcus, who forced his hand all the time, is out of the way, Khan isn't even that much of a bad guy – he just wants to rescue his own “crew”, much like Kirk tries to protect his – but the script has him act like one after a completely gratuitous surprise appearance by old Spock (Leonard Nimoy selling out once more), who informs his younger alternative self, and the laymen in the public (there will be many no doubt), just who Khan used to be in the original time line, so the audience expects Khan to be just as evil now. Consequently, he is, for no other reasons than to satiate our expectations and to fill the void left by Marcus' demise which has left the film without a proper bad guy. Unlike was the case with the original Khan, there's no reason for Khanberbatch to have any real personal beef with Kirk. In fact, they teamed up successfully against Marcus only a minute before, making Khan even more 'less of a bad guy'. The lack of a solid conflict between Kirk and Khan is a severe weak point in establishing Khan anew, as is his so-called status as a superhuman. Thanks again to poor scripting, Khan is hardly allowed to show off his superiority, at least in the brain department. His actions are more the result of opportunity than they are of careful advance planning. Like everything in J.J.'s Trek-verse, Khan is just not as smart as he ought to have been. At least Cumberbatch portrays him with enough angry vigour and physical prowess to come off as 'fairly frightful'. But he's still a far cry from Ricardo Montalban's original, far superior super human, who was truly dominating “his” movie in terms of menace and intellect. After all, he caused Spock to die.

In Star Trek Into Darkness, it's Kirk's time to meet his maker. Thing is, his untimely demise doesn't make for an emotionally gripping final moment as he faces Spock, hands to the glass in an effort to reach out in mutual understanding and respect one last time. Problem being, this is not the Kirk we have known for so long and thus come to love. We've been with this particular Kirk for only a few hours total and that's simply not enough to care deeply enough about him to make us feel anything when he kicks the bucket. And even if it did, we are robbed of this intended emotional climax anyway thanks to a very cheap and convenient plot device, courtesy of Khan. The genetically enhanced dictator not only packs a mean punch, but he also has healing powers in his blood. Long story short, giving Kirk a blood transfusion returns him to the living – yes, you're reading this correctly – and all's well that ends well. Seriously, what was the point of having him die at all, apart from haphazardly echoing the bittersweet, tearjerking final moments of Star Trek II? Apparently it was only a way to piss Spock off once more, making him go on an emotional rampage (again! That's twice in two movies: apparently this Spock just isn't a very good Vulcan) and defeating Khan for once and for all. Obviously, not without a little help from his girlfriend Uhura. Women resucing their men out of tough spots is as much a cliché as the age old damsel-in-distress these days.

And there we have another weakness in the script when it comes to characters: Uhura. Or better said: the rest of the crew. They don't get that much to do and continue not to matter much. Uhura for some reason has an actual boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with Spock, even if this is completely illogical. After all, in the preceding film planet Vulcan was destroyed, so why would Spock bother dating a human girl instead of a Vulcan woman when there's already so little Vulcan blood left to keep the species going? The whole how and why behind their liaison is blatantly ignored, nor does it ever get beyond the stage of petty squabbling interspersed with brief moments of saying 'I love you'. And that's just not enough to make a relationship with consequences of this magnitude a thing of logic. Or realism. Then there's Sulu. Which is basically all that can be said of his presence in this film. So moving on, we have Chekov, Russian accent more cringeworthy and annoying than ever. This time he gets his big break and is moved from helmsman to Chief Engineer, a completely ridiculous career switch that would only make sense to blind people (Get it? Of course you don't, you need to know Trek for realsies to get that one!). What happened to Scotty, you might ask? Well, he had moral qualms (yes, there's some in Abrams' Trek at last!) when he was asked to okay for a load of unconventional photon torpedoes aboard ship, which he declined so Kirk gave him the sack. My reason to fire him would have been Simon Pegg's overuse of everything connected to the Scottish dialect, including some heavy drinking. But even drunk he can be convinced to help Kirk out regardless, and he shows up just in time to save the day, just so the plot can fill some holes it wouldn't be able to fill without the aid of ample alcoholic consumptions. Oh, and McCoy occasionally graces the screen with his presence too, but not enough to truly matter other than bringing Kirk back from the dead when the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the Trekkies who just want this branch of the franchise to be closed down for good.

Is there nothing good to be said for Star Trek Into Darkness? Sure there is. Zachary Quinto does a fair job imitating Leonard Nimoy, for the most part. The visual effects, of which there are more than in all the previous Trek movies combined, appear convincing enough, except for the times they are obscured by lens flares. I gotta say, I got a bit of a kick out of seeing Q'onoS, a dark, sombre, foreboding planet with a single moon that was shot to pieces (Praxis no doubt). But for the most part it was painfully clear J.J. prefers Star Wars over Star Trek. Almost all locations and action sequences felt like something out of Wars. For one thing, 23^rd century San Francisco looked more like Coruscant than it did Earth. This Trek universe is populated with all manner of gizmos and creatures that are meant as little throwaways just for fun, but will confuse the hell out of true Trekkies. What the hell was that android thing doing on the bridge? What's the deal with those Starship Troopers type dress uniforms they're wearing at formal gatherings? And why did the totally gratuitous and irrelevant semi-nude scene starring Alice Eve's body last so briefly? At least some of those throwaways refer back to actual Trek: bonus points for the Enterprise NX-01 model on Marcus' desk! And as a freebie, you get a bit of Section 31 in this film too.

J.J. is definitely not a true Trekkie, as he has shown and even openly stated many times before, but at least the writers took clues of previous Trek and incoporated them in their script for Into Darkness. This film is laced with references, some clever and subtle, others not so much (think in-your-face, mind meld style). The general audience will probably be unaware of virtually all of them, but that will not be the case for Trekkies. The effort is appreciated, but the undeniable result is whenever a reference pops up, it hearkens back to better Trek and leaves a sour aftertaste, instead of the joyful feeling one usually experiences when getting a reference. That, plus the fact Star Trek Into Darkness feels like a soft and shallow retread of one of the most classic Trek films makes this movie another kick in the groin (or the knee, depending on where certain species keep their genitals) for the true fanbase that has lived and evolved with Trek for decades, but has a hard time accepting the dumbing down of what was once an intelligent, witty and engaging Sci-Fi franchise.

Fortunately for J.J., turning Trek into an action driven brainless space opera has landed him the gig for directing Star Wars Episode VII. Hopefully that will soon mean Abrams will stop being involved with Trek. Why shouldn't he after all? Star Wars is where his heart lies as he has reminded us all too often. We can only hope Trek will now be given to someone who really cares about it and understands how it works. Though I fear permanent damage has been done to the franchise by Abrams' lack of care, I cannot help but feel ever inspired by Gene Roddenberry's faith in humanity and its continuous striving for a better future. In Trek's case, it can't get much worse. But at least Abrams' work has compelled people who didn't know jack about Trek to seek out true Trek and explore its strange old worlds. If anything, it suggests Trek will continue to live long and prosper in some way, and so will the Trekkies.

*The derogatory term 'nerfherder' actually stems from the Star Wars universe, but you would hardly be able to discern Abrams' Trek-verse from the Star Wars universe anyway, so what the heck...

Cloverfield

Rating: ****/*****, or 7/10

The 'found footage' style is applied to the age old monster movie routine, with surprising success. A bunch of New York kids throw a farewell party for a friend while one of them records the scene, but things turn awry when an unknown giant marine creature attacks the city, after which the army is brought in to fight it. Five of the youngsters decide to rescue one of their number's girlfriend caught in a ravaged part of town, and have to make their way evading the combat zone, as well as little parasitic monsters swarming the city. It soon seems likely none of them might make it out of NYC alive, but we don't mind as long as the camera keeps running and director Reeves keeps the tension, ranging from epic to claustrophobic but always dynamic, going. In typical producer J.J. Abrams fashion, the project was long kept a mystery with tidbits of information sporadically released so as to make the hype around it grow to humongous proportions, and naturally it failed to fully deliver on the anticipation it thus spawned, but it remains an enjoyable flick regardless, with good effects as we slowly see slightly more and more of the creature so as to keep interest mounting instead of giving too much away too soon. It also helped the 'found footage' take on genre films had not yet been done to death at this point in cinematic history: today this film would be significantly harder to sell to any audience in this regard.

Starring: Lizzy Caplan, T.J. Miller, Jessica Lucas

Directed by Matt Reeves

USA: Paramount Pictures, 2008