rate the last movie you saw

[Eric Paddon]

I think its unfortunate that a key artistic decision based on who the director was chummier with ultimately dictated that point. Even before I came to feel that IV was not a good film overall (so much so that it cured me of being a Trekkie forever), my first reaction at not hearing Horner's theme when the film began (*especially* after all trailers and commercials *used* Horner's theme) was to say the least one of mild shock that set the wrong tone for the film as a whole with me. In time, Rosenmann's score grew on me in its good parts when I got the soundtrack, but I still would have preferred something that provided musical continuity as a whole. You could go from Goldsmith to Horner from TMP to II because the overall look of Trek was basically rebooted from the first one but IV was a continuing part of a storyline and that's the key difference.

[Monterey Jack]

Star Trek (2009): 8.5/10

Going back to this after having experienced the original series and the first six films is certainly a different experience. That said, it's an enormously entertaining reboot of the franchise proper, and, I'm sorry, but it's a blessed relief to see a younger crew manning the Enterprise, as it was becoming downright uncomfortable witnessing how bloated and wizened Shatner, Nimoy and the rest were getting by the end on their tenure. I'd much rather see a naked fan dance by Zoe Saldana. And hey, that's Thor as Kirk's dad!

[Jedbu]

I really feel that Abram's reboot in '09 got short shrift from many, both ST devotees and civilians. I thought it was a fantastic adventure, had a great sense of humor, gave us some really terrific actors in iconic roles and let them put their own spin on them (major kudos to Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg for giving great impressions of what those characters would later become on the series) yet didn't feel like the whole ST world is Holy Writ, but more like Shakespeare-open to interpretation and experimentation as long as you don't pull a "Richard III" in THE GOODBYE GIRL.

And I wouldn't mind seeing Zoe Saldana do a fan dance either, although the "green girl" would be my preference...

[AndyDursin]

I thought it was great both then and now

http://www.andyfilm.com/5-12-09.html

[Paul MacLean]

I have a kind of weird regard for this movie. I thought it was exciting, entertaining, funny, suspenseful -- a really good summer "popcorn" flick.

But...it never really felt like Star Trek to me. It seemed like a bunch of people imitating Star Trek. So, as a regular movie-goer I really liked it, but as a Star Trek fan not so much.

[AndyDursin]

a really good summer "popcorn" flick.

That's exactly what the point of the film was.

They were making something that would appeal more broadly to mainstream audiences (many of whom wouldn't be caught dead at a Trek film) as opposed to merely targeting the aging, older Trekkie fanbase that didn't even show up for INSURRECTION and NEMESIS, and who also had been worn out by too much Trek on TV. That Rick Berman-era Star Trek was playing to diminishing returns for years and the well was exhausted.

I'm a Trek fan and it worked for me in it being respectful yet "remixed" -- the focus was on fun instead of a mythology so cluttered and increasingly sterile that it was hard to follow by the end of its run in the Berman years. Either way, the film paid off because this new movie is making more money internationally than any Star Trek picture ever has, so the "base" has grown. They've been able to make the "brand" more accessible it seems and that was the whole intention behind these films.

At the same time though, you have to ask what's the endgame in doing these pictures. This is a feature-film series. It's not a weekly TV show like Trek always has been. By that very definition, this cast is never going to establish the same rapport with viewers the way the original series did or the TNG cast did -- especially when you are making just 2 movies, 4 years apart. So is the goal to keep cranking these films out until nobody cares? Or bring Trek back to TV eventually? I'd have to imagine the latter will happen when this series has run its course, but I find the 4-year gap between these pictures to be really a missed opportunity at not seizing the momentum the 09 film had when it debuted.

Still I think a lot of people who didn't like the '09 film are just plain cranky and set in their "don't touch my Star Trek!" ways. If the movie had gone with a Battlestar Galactica-like "revision," everyone would've complained it was too dark, depressing and different. They could've brought in someone like Christopher Nolan and produced something deadly serious and humorless. They could've brought Michael Bay in and just turned it into wall-to-wall noise and special effects. Instead they made it respectful, fun and upbeat for the most part, yet there were people who still complained it was too much the same or "it was just a rehash."

No matter what, there's always going to be a segment of the older fanbase who isn't going to be happy -- but you have to realize, this new movie primarily wasn't made for them so much as it was a larger segment of viewers, unfamiliar with the franchise. For me, the approach worked and the film delivered more than I thought it was going to, because it tapped into the spirit and optimism of the original series and what made it click. Less of the Berman-era scientific mumbo jumbo, more of a concentration on the characters and their interaction with each other.

Too much of what we see today has to be DARK AND EDGY, and Abrams' vision of Trek wasn't that, at least...which is why I think, detractors and all (and I haven't always been crazy about everything he's made), he's the most appropriate person to be doing the new STAR WARS film, because he at least "gets it" in so far as to what he's making. He's not trying to reinvent the wheel when it doesn't need to be reinvented.

[Monterey Jack]

Great points, Andy. I was a Trek virgin prior to the '09 film (okay, I saw First Contact years ago -- the one with the Borg, right? -- and thought it was okay, but having not watched The Next Generation, it was somewhat baffling and impeneratable), and now I'm a budding Junior Trekkie who has watched all of the original series and first six films. For decades, being a Trek fan has been synonymous with "nerd living in his mother's basement who has never kissed a girl", but, for perhaps the first time in the history of the franchise it's actually, dare I say it, "cool" to be a Trekkie. Having a young, svelte crew instead of the increasingly bloated and wrinkly original series cast in the films certainly helps...without a built-in affection for those original actors from the series, I can understand why they would be rough going for today's younger audiences to sit through (note how James "Scotty" Doohan is at least 20 pounds heavier in each sequel). Now, we have those iconic characters with their various quirks and accents being delivered by a talented younger cast who manage to find the sweet spot in-between doing simple impersonations and creating their own takes on them. And it was a masterstroke to use time travel to spin off an entrely new timeline...now, instead of aging Trekkies whining about their precious, immutable "canon", Abrams and crew can create whatever new plotlines they so desire without stepping on any toes. Those original episodes and movies still "happened", but just in another timeline (much like the later seasons of Abrams' Fringe). I just hope that they can geta third movie into theaters within the next two years or so...it'd be nice to get as many films out of this cast as possible while they're still young.

[AndyDursin]

That's precisely how I feel MJ (though I have yet to see the new film). I like the fact that Abrams "got it" in so far as to what people always found appealing about Kirk and Spock. The younger cast is exactly what was needed -- and IMO he got the right people cast, which is a testament to him. The Uhura-Spock stuff I don't get -- but what he's doing otherwise -- this kind of "remix" that frees them up to essentially rework/remake/shake up certain old plots but in a different context, without ruining "canon" -- was a brilliant idea IMO in the '09 film. You can have the old Trek, it's still there...but this is here also, for younger viewers, for people who didn't invest time in it before like you, and hopefully the old guard who will appreciate it for what it is.

But basically, Abrams understood the movies needed to back to what the ORIGINAL SERIES was and the dynamic that existed there. There was a human component to the old series and movies that has not been duplicated. And as much as I like TNG (though it has taken me years to really get into it), I don't find Picard and that crew as warm and lovable as Shatner, Nimoy, Kelley and the rest of the gang. That, plus the Rick Berman shows became more and more wrapped up in their mythology and scientific/tech talk that they were almost impenetrable to anyone but the hardcore. If you start watching TNG or any of the shows that followed, you'll find that out.

[mkaroly]

TOKYO TWILIGHT (1957) – 9/10. An aging father named Shukichi Sugiyama (Chishu Ryu) lives with his two daughters in Tokyo. The eldest, named Takako (Setsuko Hara), moved into the house with her baby daughter because she is unhappily married to a man who has become a drunk. The youngest daughter, Akiko (Ineko Arima), is wild and rebellious. Her relationship with her boyfriend Kenji (Masami Taura) becomes complicated when she finds out she is pregnant by him. One day she meets a woman in a mahjong parlor who knows a lot about her family, which leads her to wonder about the mother she never got to know. Feeling rejected and alone, Akiko’s decisions lead her on a journey in which she discovers the truth about her mother, which in turn brings challenges to the Sugiyama family.

This is arguably Ozu’s most dark film, in that it deals with extremely taboo subject matter (at least I would imagine it to be in 1957). It takes place mostly in dark, smoky places: bars, mahjong parlors, and places where people pick up prostitutes. The film mostly centers on the consequences of “mistakes” by parents: for example, in the absence of a mother, the father attempted to coddle and dote over Akiko, yet he could not replace what was missing in Akiko’s life. The film plays somewhat like a soap opera, but I was impressed with the tension the story builds as it moved forward. The “reveals” in the story (from Akiko’s pregnancy to the story of what happened to her mother to Takako’s decision at the end) are very well done and added to the emotional impact of the story, especially as it moved to its conclusion.

Like other Ozu films before this one, another major theme is a lack of ability to understand or communicate between generations. Akiko maneuvers in secret throughout the film, unable to communicate her hurt and problems to either her older sister or her father. Shukichi seems most aloof – he doesn’t understand either of his daughters and seems helpless to help them in any way. Takako has her own problems to worry about, and she seems caught in the middle. The acting is decent (Ryu and Hara are amazing as always), and the “circus–like music” (my word for it) heard at various points in the story seems somewhat ironic considering the subject matter. Once again, the themes of hope, disillusionment, regret, and resignation undergird the foundation of this late period Ozu film. Ozu sums up his consistent idea of the human condition with little dialogue and powerful images by film's end. Although not as powerful as LATE SPRING, the ending still packs an emotional punch.

[AndyDursin]

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS
4/10

And this is what I get for defending Abrams?!?! I really did not care for this film. Here's my review from the front page:

J.J Abrams’ 2009 “reboot” of the Star Trek franchise was greeted with a generally warm response from audiences and critics alike. How distressing, then, that his belated follow-up, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, is an almost unbearably bombastic remix of “The Wrath of Khan,” so poorly handled that it negates most of the goodwill established by its predecessor.

The plot, concocted by Abrams’ usual cohorts Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof finds Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the rest of the Enterprise crew in the midst of a surveying mission gone haywire. The fallout nearly ends up sending Kirk back to the Academy, but the vile actions of a villain (Benedict Cumberbatch) shrouded in mystery soon force Starfleet’s hand – and places Kirk in charge of a vengeful mission to track him down in the far reaches of the galaxy. Without spoiling too much of the plot (as if it hasn’t been already), the ensuing battle between Kirk and Cumberbatch’s villain ends up sending the characters down a road you’ve already seen before – but without any of the emotional and dramatic stakes its far superior counterpart generated.

“Star Trek Into Darkness” offers Abrams at his worst behind the camera: constantly swirling the camera around as if every single moment is a fever pitch of dramatic tension, utilizing ADD levels of hyper-editorial rhythms, and scarcely stopping for a minute to let any of it breathe. This is a loud, shrill exercise in modern studio filmmaking almost from start to end – dramatic beats go quickly by the wayside in favor of another fistfight, one more explosion, and copious amounts of special effects. Once in a while Bones (Karl Urban, criminally underutilized here) or Scotty (Simon Pegg) drop in a cute line or two, but there’s no humanity beneath the bombast, and the ultimate revelation of Cumberbatch’s bad guy won’t come as much of a surprise. What IS a surprise is how clumsily it’s integrated into a lame “Starfleet conspiracy” angle that’s wholly unsatisfying – the movie, which I wasn’t crazy about right off the bat, basically unraveled completely for me during this stretch of the film and never recovered.

I felt that Abrams’ concept for his “Star Trek” was a smart one in 2009: breaking free from “canon,” but working in familiar ingredients in new and inventive ways, that picture was one of the best of the big-studio remakes we’ve been deluged with over recent years. Sadly, “Into Darkness” proves that film was just a one-trick pony, as Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof seem to have nothing new to add here, and subsequently fall back on Nicholas Meyer’s 1982 classic for inspiration more and more as the film progresses. Whole lines of dialogue end up being reprieved in a new context – but they mean next to nothing here dramatically, since their inclusion feels less like they’re integral to the story and more a result of the filmmakers having nothing else to say. Meanwhile, other fan-service references – like the future design of the Enterprise, an appearance of the Klingons, Leonard Nimoy’s pointless cameo, and a quick appearance by a Tribble – come off as totally arbitrary. What’s next – Seth Rogen appearing as Harry Mudd? (Maybe we shouldn’t give them any ideas!).

The picture’s flaws are further compounded by a totally blah visual scheme – despite a huge budget, where’s the imagination? Abrams’ futuristic San Francisco looks like “Minority Report” or last year’s “Total Recall”; Kirk and Scotty running around a gravity-challenged Enterprise on its last legs plays like a feeble reprise of “Titanic”; and various set-pieces, like Kirk and his “frenemy” flying through space dodging debris, look like leftovers from any number of recent comic book flicks. Very little of this picture looks or feels like a “Star Trek” adventure, and even Michael Giacchino’s wall-to-wall underscore (there are precious few scenes that play without music) is completely exhausting.

If the 2009 “Star Trek” felt as fresh and invigorating as the start of Abrams’ series “Lost,” then “Into Darkness” plays like the disastrous end of it. A hugely unsatisfying and headache-inducing disappointment.

[Paul MacLean]

I haven't seen Star Trek yet, but my friend Jason Pierce made this amusing observation on Facebook...

"The coolest technology in the new Star Trek movie is these indestructible fists everyone seems to have. You can punch someone in the head over and over with absolutely no damage. And they don't even explain it, that's how much in the peaceful, enlightened future everyone just takes it for granted."

[AndyDursin]

I haven't seen Star Trek yet, but my friend Jason Pierce made this amusing observation on Facebook...

"The coolest technology in the new Star Trek movie is these indestructible fists everyone seems to have. You can punch someone in the head over and over with absolutely no damage. And they don't even explain it, that's how much in the peaceful, enlightened future everyone just takes it for granted."

There's actually a partial explanation for that, but it involves spoilers.

But no matter, to quote Lukas, it sucked!

I will actually be surprised Paul if you make it through the entire movie....lol.

[Paul MacLean]

I will actually be surprised Paul if you make it through the entire movie....lol.

That's a shame. I thought the teaser -- which mostly consisted of the volcano sequence -- looked terrific.

[BobaMike]

This is my first time writing a review on this site, so bear with me, especially since I appear to be in the minority.

Star Trek: Into Darkness 7 out of 10

Spoilers below!

I'm not a big Trek fan. I enjoyed the movies with the original cast (1,2, and 6 being my favorites), but never got into any of the later films, and didn't really watch any of the various tv shows. I'm a Star Wars fan. I did really like the 2009 reboot a lot, and rewatched it last night before going to see Into Darkness at our local Alamo Drafthouse.

The movie was a little too quickly paced, and could have used some more breathing time in between the action sequences. Kirk loses his ship and regains it in the space of about 10 minutes! However, the action was top-notch. I realize Trek is not necessarily an action franchise, but to me, the effects, editing and stunts were better than anything in the Revenge of the Sith. The sets looked real, and actually made sense to me. (I still don't understand the layout of Nero's ship in the previous flick!). The fight through San Francisco was fantastic, and I enjoyed the spinning out of control Enterprise sequence. This movie had some good laughs, and the actors made me forget the original people that played the parts.

I appreciated the nods to Wrath of Kahn, and they didn't seem out of place or mocking the older film. In our theater the music held it's own against the sound fx, and I though Giacchino did a good job. (Still not as good as Horner and Goldsmith though)

Things I really didn't care for:
-Why all the futuristic buildings looked the same. Gray. Buildings now are different colors, but in Trek both London and SF are boring gray.
-I'm also tired of movies where the military is the bad guy.
-The big plot hole that bothered me was why they needed Kahn alive at the end, when they 72 more of his crew frozen onboard?

I can understand why people didn't like this movie, but coming from a non-Trekkie, I really liked it. It also gave me hope for JJ's Star Wars films.

[mkaroly]

EQUINOX FLOWER (1958) – 9.5/10. Ozu's first color film tells the story of the Hirayama family. Patriarch Wataru (Shin Saburi), an executive, lives with his wife Kiyoko (Kinuyo Tanaka) and their two daughters Setsuko (Ineko Arima) and Hisako (Miyuki Kuwano). Setsuko is of marrying age and Wataru wants to arrange a marriage for her; however, Setsuko has her own ideas and decides that she will marry Masahiko Taniguchi (Keiji Sada), and her decision upsets both parents. With the help of her friend Yukiko (the absolutely, stunningly gorgeous Fujiko Yamamoto), Setsuko proceeds with her wedding plans, though her father stubbornly resists.

Unlike several of his previous films, EQUINOX FLOWER plays more like a comedy and is very light. At this time in his career Ozu began to sympathize with the younger generation, and it’s clear that the film sides with Setsuko and Yukiko. Ozu uses color brilliantly, and seeing his designs in color rather than black and white was revelatory. Thematically, parental hypocrisy plays a big role: in the opening scenes, Wataru attends the wedding of a friend’s daughter and praises them for choosing marriage out of love (modernity). In contrast, his marriage was arranged in the traditional ways, and he recognizes that times have changed. Yet when it comes to Setsuko’s decision to marry for love, he stubbornly refuses to accept his daughter’s breach of his authority to arrange a marriage. However, Ozu never lets things get too tragic as in previous films; one of the most delightful moments in the film is when Yukiko plays a trick on Wataru to show him the error of his thinking. I laughed several times in the film, which I’m not used to doing.

The acting is great, and Fujiko Yamamoto can give Setsuko Hara a run for her money…she is amazingly beautiful. Several moments of comic relief are provided by talkative Hatsu Sasaki (Chieko Naniwa), Yukiko’s mother. Ozu regular Chishu Ryu gets a moment to shine in an emotionally delivered poem at a war reunion that will stick in your memory long after the film is over. Although the opening of the film warns of “bad weather” ahead, it is a light film that, for lack of a better way of putting it, is “bouncy” and fun, especially with the use of color.