You Missed Your Stop

Date of Release: Tons

Date of Viewing: 8/10/09

Date of Review: 8/15/09

After its debut at the Venice Film Festival over a year ago, 'The Hurt Locker' has finally reached US theaters... in spurts. Earlier this week, I had the privilege of watching director Kathryn Bigelow's most widely-acclaimed film to date. The result is an emotionally pounding thriller of a war movie. In fact, it's the best film about the Iraq/Gulf wars to date.

The film begins with the introduction of an Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) team in 2004 Baghdad. Essentially, their job is to roam the streets and deserts of Iraq, looking for dangerous hidden bombs (referred to as IED's, Improvised Explosive Devices). The team consists of three men: a leader who goes out and wears a protective suit while he disarms the bomb, and two snipers (Anthony Mackie as Sgt. Sanborn and Brian Geraghty as Sgt. Eldridge) to provide cover for the leader. In the opening scene, the team leader (Guy Pearce) is killed by a remote bomb. Days later, Sgt. James (Jeremy Renner) arrives as the new team leader, with only 40 days left in the tour. On the first mission with the new team, Sgt. James demonstrates a very uncooperative and dangerous work routine for disarming bombs. This immediately becomes a major source of tension between the tree soldiers, as they try to get out of Iraq in one piece.

There are a lot of good things about this movie, and a few problems. First things first, it's a very unconventional film. The three biggest stars in the cast (Guy Pearce, Ralph Fiennes, and Evangeline Lilly) have the three smallest parts in the picture. With that said, Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie have both proven that they are worthy of leading roles in major action films/thrillers. Their performances were interesting, entertaining, and intense. On that note, 'Hurt Locker's general mood of unrelenting suspense and gut-wrenching tension are most likely the strongest characteristics of the film. Every time the team is disarming a bomb, there are people watching from every angle, you can almost feel the heat of the desert, every sound invokes a stir (I jumped twice, myself). Bigelow does a great job with these scenes-- I literally felt like I was wearing the bomb suit. The sound and camerawork were also sensational. The use of sound to create tension and discomfort in the audience was incredibly effective. Saving Private Ryan showed us how horrifying war can be when there are gunshots coming from every angle-- 'Hurt Locker' shows us how war can be even more terrifying when the battlefield is completely silent. In 'Hurt Locker', every sound counts, and it counts a lot. The visual effects and pyrotechnics, all real, were also fantastic. Bigelow pushed her $11 million budget to its highest potential.

Not everything was perfect, I definitely enjoyed the film, but it was too long... or at least a little slow at points. One scene in particular took about 12 minutes and could have easily been cut to 4 or 5 minutes. On top of this, Bigelow's cinematographer Barry Ackroyd is clearly a big fan of rapid zoom-ins and outs. Zooms were very popular in 60s and early 70s cinema, but have largely gone out of style due to the fact that they are a bit disorienting. They have recently become popular in dramatic television series. Ackroyd uses them well for the most part-- in fact they made several shots much better, but they happened way too often. The zoom was, without question, over used.

All things considered, this movie is a great thriller. In my opinion, its two primary goals were achieved. One, it put the viewer in the shoes of the soldiers onscreen. Every bomb scene was very encapsulating. Two, it did a great job of demonstrating the disorganized manner of the conflict in Iraq. It showed the haphazard manner in which the US soldiers in Iraq find and select their missions-- there truly is no method to the madness. Maybe now, people will finally realize how much Jarhead really sucked.

EPIC Scale: 4/5

Date of Release: 7.31.09

Date of Viewing: 8.2.09

Date of Review: 8.3.09

The most anticipated comedy of the Summer is here... and it probably won't make very much money. I had a great time at 'Funny People', so don't take that the wrong way. I will say this, the audience appeal for the film is very tainted. The typical Adam Sandler crowd may be turned off, because 'Funny People', unlike most Sandler vehicles, isn't retarded. In fact, his increasingly-younger-as-he-gets-older fandbase will have a difficult time getting tickets to an R-rated movie that their parents sure as hell don't wanna see. Apatow fans may be turned off by the mediocre (by Judd's standards) reviews and lengthy run time (2hrs 26min). All things considered, 'Funny People' is worth it, and then some.

The film begins with successful comedian/actor George Simmons (Sandler), as he is diagnosed with a rare and fatal form of leukemia. The doctor tells him that he will most likely not survive the illness. Here arrives one of the best parts of the movie-- Sandler's performance... much of which comes in the form of old archive footage from Sandler's younger days, giving the movie a cool auto-biographical feel. I can't believe I just fucking said that. But seriously, he hasn't shown this much emotion on screen since having to say good bye to the kid who wipes his own ass in 'Big Daddy'. Well done, Adam. He does a decent enough job of showing somebody who is lonely, resentful of fame, and afraid of death. Then enters a surprisingly-not-funny Seth Rogen... the funniest thing about him in this flick is the constant references to the fact that he's lost weight (something the papers have been commenting on for months). It really is true, now that he isn't fat, he isn't funny either. To quote Jonah Hill... “Nobody wants to see Lance Armstrong doing standup”. Although Michael Phelps could probably do it because, fit or not, he still looks like somebody hit him in the face with a shovel.

As a result of George's diagnosis, he hires Ira Wright (Rogen), a struggling comedian, as his personal assistant and joke-writer. On top of this, George tries to find and fix things with Laura, the woman he once loved and lost (Leslie Mann). This storyline's kinda fuzzy. It's one of those romances where you don't see what any of the chemistry is between the two leads or why they like each other so much. You just know that they do, because they tell each other ALL THE FUCKING TIME. I hate to say it, but it's really no better than the half-baked romances in most Sandler flicks between him and some shitty model-actress/Drew Barrymore. In the process, George finds that Laura is married to an Australian man named Clarke (Eric Bana, epic), and has two kids with him. He also finds that he has somehow miraculously beaten his disease. About two thirds through the film, George takes Ira from LA to Marin County to try to rekindle his romance with Laura, despite the fact that she is happily married. Again, this is where it gets a bit convoluted and the film slows down considerably.

'Funny People' starts off more like 'Gut-splittingly Hilariuos People' before it demotes itself to merely 'funny' towards the end, but the story is solid and the jokes are awesome-- the best of any Apatow film to date. Highlights include the music (James Taylor actually makes an epic cameo), the media references (Adam Sandler mercilessly makes fun of himself throughout, sit-coms are also targeted), the star cameos (Norm McDonald, Eminem, and Ray Romano all make self-degrading appearances), and the introduction of rising star Aziz Ansari as rAAAAAAAAndy. RAAAAAAAAndy spells his name with 8 A's, trust me I counted, and he's fucking epic. Ansari plays the stereotypical annoyingly-hyper obnoxious-jive-talkin' comic to a T. Easily the most quotable character in any Apatow film thus far. Yes, the movie is a bit grim. Yes, it's two and a half hours long, and it feels like it's two and a half hours long, but like I said, 'Funny People' is worth it.

EPIC Scale: 4.0/5

Date of Viewing: 7.10.09

Date of Review: 7.14.09

First, let me make my disclaimers. There is legitimately a minute and a half of onscreen DICK in this movie. Full frontal. In your face. Swinging all over the frame. DICK. Secondly, there are about five minutes of the most graphic sex acts you could possibly think of. Pretty much the only offensive sexual content that is not present in this film is beastiality. With that said, through all slander, sex, and nauseating dross... I laughed my ass off. I can confidently say that Brüno made me laugh more than any other comedy this year, and it even made me laugh more than Borat did... a statement that most people have disagreed with me on. This may be because I have the sense of humor or a six-year-old and Borat was too sophisticated for my juvenile tastes. Regardless, if you have a strong stomach, and you are in need of a laugh, SEE Brüno.

The film begins with the introduction of the lead character, Brüno (played brilliantly by Sacha Baron Cohen). Bruno is an openly-gay Austrian fashionista who runs his own fashion television program. However, when Bruno ruins a runway show, he is fired from his TV program and decides to re-locate to the United States. The remainder of the film focuses on Bruno's efforts to make it as a star in Hollywood, his blossoming romance with his (male) assistant, Lutz, and his eventual decision to try to become straight. Highlights include Bruno's pilot TV pitch to some studio execs, during which he shows his penis for at least thirty seconds.... and makes it 'talk'; failed interviews with Ron Paul and Harrison Ford; and Bruno's trip to the Middle East, where people throw rocks at him, and where he tries to conduct an interview with a former terror-group leader.

Ultimately, this movie is offensive and disgusting, and I have a very high tolerance for that sort of thing. If you can handle it, I'd say that you are in for a number of laughs. One 'talent' that Cohen has truly mastered in this film over his previous works is the ability to say the most offensive possible thing to the worst possible person. One example would be him telling a group of African-Americans that they are racist for referring to African blacks as 'Africans'. Another would be telling a religious “gay converter” that he has “great dick-sucking lips”. If you are not bothered by the two examples above, or by the thought of absurd sex acts on screen, go see Brüno.

EPIC Scale: 4/5

 Date of Release: 5/29/09

Date of Viewing: 6/15/09

Date of Review: 6/23/09

Up is, without a doubt, the best movie of the summer thus far. For that reason, I apologize for this review being a bit 'bland'... I'm really only creative or funny when I'm being mean; but I have nothing bad to say about this film. In fact, it is Pixar’s best product since The Incredibles. I might even go so far as to say that director Pete Doctor (Monsters, Inc.) has made Pixar’s most adult-oriented film to date. I definitely had my reservations going into this one. Pixar typically doesn’t deal with human characters, except in very small roles. From my angle, their strength has been in humanizing and personifying their non-human characters. Their characters have been the result of creative minds asking themselves: if I were a toy/monster in the closet/lonely robot, what would I be like? What would I do? What would I want? And they’ve nailed it every time. Like I said, I didn’t know what to think of this movie. All I knew going in was that it opened the Cannes Film Festival and it involved a guy floating his house up on balloons… which is epic, but it’s not that much information. I mean, Death Proof got into Cannes, too.

Up makes its audience care for and empathize with its lead character immediately. Carl Fredricksen is a shy young boy who loves going on adventures. One day, he meets Ellie, an outgoing girl who shares Carl’s love for adventures—they even have the same idol, Charles Muntz. One day, in Ellie’s club house, Ellie tells Carl that she dreams of moving her clubhouse to Paradise Falls in South America. A dialogue-free montage follows. Carl and Ellie get marry and grow old together in the abandoned house where they first met. Carl is a balloon vendor at a zoo while Ellie is a zookeeper. They are unable to have children, and constantly try to save money for their trip to Paradise Falls. One complication arises after another, and their trip keeps being put on hold. Many years pass, but Carl eventually gets the money for the trip, but Ellie dies of old age before they can go.

A city has grown around Carl and Ellie’s old house, and the construction company is trying to get Carl to give the house up, but he refuses. During an argument with a construction worker, Carl hits him with his cane and he is arrested. The court orders Carl to move into a retirement home. The day before his moving date, Carl uses his professional supplies to make a makeshift airship lifted by 10,000 helium balloons. His destination: Paradise Falls. Little does Carl know, he has a passenger: Russell, a boy scout who was on Carl’s stoop at the time of take off. The two land in South America, a few miles short of Paradise Falls. The majority of the film chronicles the journey of Carl and Russell as they pull his house (which is still slightly levitated by the balloons) to Carl’s (and Ellie’s) final destination.

Though not as funny as Toy Story or Finding Nemo (it’s kind of hard to laugh after watching the first few scenes, anyway), Up delivers a strong story with great visuals and a solid meaning underneath. Some comedic relief does surface about halfway through the movie. While making their way to Paradise Falls, Carl and Russell find a dog with a strange looking collar that vocalizes the dog’s thoughts. They soon realize that these dogs are plentiful in the area, and they belong to Carl Muntz (Carl’s former hero), who, in his old age, has become eccentric and psychotic. This all probably sounds quite random. I remember before seeing Up, my biggest concern was that the trailers said nothing that gave me any idea as to what the movie was about. Then I realized that it’s just one of those things that has to be seen to believe—‘UPic’ in every sense of the word.

UPIC Scale: 4.5/5

 Date of release: 6/5/09

Date of viewing: 6/8/09

Date of review: 6/19/09

I wasn’t completely sure what to think as I walked out of seeing The Hangover… in fact, it was strangely similar to the way I felt when I walked out of seeing Todd Phillips’ last movie, Old School, for the first time. The only thought that came to mind for me was: “what did I just do?” I guess I felt the same way as the trio of friends who had just woken up from a blacked-out night of Vegas partying in the movie. Yes, the movie has absolutely no point. There is no message or underlying theme in the script or between the characters—which I probably should have expected from a movie that used Mike Tyson in a cameo role. Shallow as it was, I can’t deny that it was a good time and it kept me laughing. In fact, I will even declare that The Hangover is the summer’s best live-action film thus far.

The structure of the movie is slightly different than most comedies… well, not really. But Todd Phillips does pull a Tarantino with the first scene, which takes place after 90% of the movie. Essentially, the movie is about four guys on a bachelor party in Las Vegas: Doug, the groom-to-be (Justin Bartha); Phil, a perverted and homophobic schoolteacher (Bradley Cooper); Stu, a dentist (Ed Helms) who, much to the dismay of his friends, plans to propose to his cheating and controlling girlfriend; and Alan, Doug’s socially inept future brother-in-law (Zach Galifianakis). On the night of the bachelor party, the guys go out on the roof of Caesar’s Palace for a toast before Doug’s last night of debauchery.

The morning after the party, Phil, Stu, and Alan wake up in their trashed hotel suite—Doug is nowhere to be found. Cue the rest of the movie, which consists of the unlikely trio (Alan is the oft-hilarious odd-man-out) searching aimlessly through Las Vegas to find their friend before his wedding. The film takes the odd form of a mystery comedy (think Dude, Where’s My Car meets Sideways), so I won’t give away too many details about the remainder of the plot. I will say this: the box office numbers don’t lie (except in the case of Wild Hogs and Night at the Museum), this movie is definitely worth seeing. We’re in a recession, summer weather has been miserable, and this was the first major comedy of the blockbuster season—and it could not have come at a better time.

The chemistry between the three leading actors is great. The movie essentially belongs to Bradley Cooper, who nearly had it stolen by Helms and Galifianakis. Cooper’s homophobic schoolteacher redefines the token comedic asshole—he uses foul language, he gives his friends shit all the time, but he’s almost always right. Usually these characters talk out of their asses, but in Cooper’s case, his ass was talking out of his mouth… or something like that. Helms was my personal favorite: his submissive nature to his girlfriend’s sadistic means of control are hysterical. The length to which he goes to make excuses for a woman who once cheated on him may be the highlight of the movie—“And if you must know, he didn’t even cum inside of her.” Galifianakis was also great. His timing and awkwardness, though familiar, made a great odd-man-out addition to this unlikely trio.

I will say that the movie is somewhat pointless—it lacks the Apatow-esque message-infused comedy formula, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on who you are. On top of that, not all of the jokes are a hit. Part of the reason I saw the movie was to see what the hell would happen in the scenes with Mike Tyson (Mike Effing Tyson) in them. The answer, like most of the movie, is a resounding “nothing”. Tyson’s cameo was wasted, in my opinion… but I guess the point of the movie is ‘wasted’, anyway. Regardless, it’s a good time, and it was definitely a movie that I was more than receptive to during this season of non-stop Christian Bale, Michael Bay, and explosions. The Hangover got me tipsy, I’m hoping that next month’s Bruno and Funny People will get me wasted.

Viewed: 6.1.09

Reviewed: 6.2.09

Conan O'Brien, one of television's most beloved personalities, made his debut as host of The Tonight Show last night. I was disappointed. It essentially served as a transition statement that read: "he was in New York, now he's in LA... watch tomorrow." Everything sketch in the show seemed like it was stretched to (roughly) one and a half times its appropriate length.

The opening sequence was mildly funny, it depicted Conan writing a checklist of what to do before starting his new show (brush teeth, get dressed, etc.). The final mark on the list read "Move to LA". The rest of the sequence involved Conan running (while wearing a black suit) from New York to Los Angeles, passing several national landmarks on the way... for five minutes. No dialogue, not really any jokes, just "Surrender" by Cheap Trick playing in the background. Moderately amusing, but it definitely got boring.

After (lengthily) thanking Jay Leno for... whatever... Conan aired two sketches about his new life in Los Angeles. One involving him driving a tour bus (not funny) and another involving him driving his '92 Ford Taurus around (kind of funny, especially Fabio's cameo and the pregnant woman). The tour bus sketch was particularly overlong and unfunny. Don't remind me.

Anyway, Conan then interviewed Will Ferrel, who made fun of her mercilessly and promoted his new movie Land of the Lost, which opens on Friday. This sparked some funny moments, but ultimately ran back to the same old joek: Conana "isn't cool enough" for LA (Will Ferrel is?!). After showing a slightly amusing clip from the film, Ferrel departed, which led to a decent, but low quality and WAY too quiet performance by Pearl Jam. This rounded out a painfully mediocre, but promising outing for Conan. At least we know the show won't change too much.

EPIC Scale: 2/5

Huffington Post has clips here.

Released: 5.21.09

Viewing: 5.21.09

Review: 5.23.09

 Oh man, oh man, oh man. It's here. The Christian Bale-starring fourth entry in the lauded Terminator franchise is finally here. The special effects extravaganza will represent the cinematic embodiment of the artistic vision of one of the world's greatest auteurs-- McG. That last part was a joke, but anyway, the summer's most-anticipated movie is here... And it's one of the more "blah" movies I've ever seen. As was mentioned on my home page a few days ago, I hold Christian Bale (almost) completely responsible for this mess.

The film opens in a prison cell in Los Angeles (year 2003) with Marcus Wright (a moderately epic Sam Worthington) and Dr. Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter) as Wright awaits his upcoming execution. She tries to convince him to donate his body to "a worthy cause". Wright is reluctant at first, but at one of the lamer moments of the film, he agrees to donate his body in exchange for a kiss.

After Wright's execution the film fast-forwards to a battlefield in the year 2018-- enter John Connor (Christian Bale). Connor is leading an attack on a Skynet base in the middle of nowhere. After infiltrating the facility, Connor and his gang discover that Skynet has begun taking human prisoners in order to develop a new terminator (the T-800, portrayed in previous films by Ahnuld) that features an exoskeleton made entirely of human tissue. Connor escapes the facility, which promptly explodes with the rest of his crew still inside. Meanwhile, Wright has awoken from his "15 year-long death" and stumbled out into the middle of this conflict. If it weren’t for the trailers, which give away the fact that Wright has been “re-incarnated” as a cyborg (quite similar to the T-800), it would be uncertain as to precisely how Wright has come back from the dead.

The remainder of the film follows two storylines. The first is that of John Connor as he tries to emerge as a leader of The Resistance and searches for his father-to-be, Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin). The other is that of Marcus Wright, who meets Kyle Reese by chance (allowing Reese to utter the infamous line “Come with me if you want to live”), and follows him in his journey to find Connor—along with an explanation for his reclaimed existence.

This is not an awful movie at all—despite what many of the other reviews have said. I saw a midnight showing and stayed wide awake throughout the entire duration. On top of this, the special effects are tremendous—easily the best in the series. Props to McG (can’t believe I just said that) for using real ammunition rounds on a number of the FX shots. Another big hand to Worthington, who, on top of giving a solid performance, performed most of his own stunts. The film, despite being set in a dystopian light, has a very real feel, which contributes to the majority of its effectiveness.

The film’s strengths end right about there. Despite being responsible for many (false) hopes that the film would be a worthy entry into the franchise, Christian Bale is largely at fault. His performance is a dreadful combination of screams and grunts. Too bad he didn’t get a part in This Is Spinal Tap, because he definitely goes up to eleven. Ultimately, his role in the film is a PG-13 version of the angry rant he threw at DP Shane Hurlbut this past summer (audio clip available here, NOT safe for work). Ultimately I blame McG for this, because we all know that Bale is capable of great, layered (i.e. not completely one-dimensional) performances. McG has made several statements claiming that Bale’s rant (and performance, in my opinion) was his fault as the director. According to The Entertainment Times Online, McG claimed that he likes his actors to be “wound up” and that Bale was “very much in character” during this rant. That would be slightly easier to believe had Bale not been speaking in his very NON-CONNOR-ESQUE welsh accent throughout the whole tirade. Nice work, McG, you trained a guy to yell his ass off like a drunken moron for two hours… is that how you got such a riveting performance out of Cameron Diaz in Charlie’s Angels?

 Finally, the script is a mess. It features two good, but tragically under-developed storylines. One: this is what happens when you get a script written by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, re-written by Paul Haggis, revised by Shawn Ryan, and then re-written by Jonathan Nolan on set. The storylines of the film intertwine very clumsily—it feels like two decent movies combined to make one painfully mediocre and incomplete movie. For this I also blame Bale, who refused to play Marcus Wright (the LEAD role which he was initially offered), mandated that he play John Connor, and forced a re-write that transformed Connor into the main focus of the film—and it shows. I’d also like to add that Bale was in the editing room with McG to approve the final cut. This is what happens when actors manipulate the creative process outside their boundaries. Maybe the film could have had more room to breathe had it been given the 140-minute runtime of T2 as opposed to the puny 115 minutes it ultimately got. While I wouldn't call this film a disappointment, I don't think I can call it a good movie, either.

EPIC Scale: 2.75/5

Released: 5.8.09

Viewing: 5.10.09

Review: 5.17.09

A young cast, a 150 milliion-dollar budget, an epic trailer (available below), and J.J. Abrams. Needless to say, Star Trek is one of this Summer's most highly-anticipated movies. Upon release, Star Trek garnered a 95% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and currently sits in the #71 spot on IMDB's top 250 list of best movies. It's gotta be pretty epic, right? WRONG. I'll admit the movie's OK and you'll have a good time watching it, but epic it is not. As a Star Wars fan, I will do my best to keep any biases out of this review, and I will keep my arguments objective and fair.

 The film focuses primarily on the paths of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto). The opening 20 minutes are easily the strongest of the film. They show the "legendary" self-sacrificial acts of George Kirk that allow his (at the time, unborn) son, James to survive an attack on his ship, the USS Kelvin, by a Romulan named Nero. The following sequences show young Jim Kirk as he dabbles in bar fights and general juvenile delinquency (very reminiscent of John Connor in T2). Kirk evolves... or devolves, rather, into a completely one-dimensional meat-head of a character. Pine's performance is perfectly encapsulated in the one line he says in the trailer after the bar fight sequence: "Why are you talkin' to me, man?". Yes, he talks like Jim Breuer for the entire movie.

Spock is easily the best-developed character in the film; Abrams and his screenwriting team did a good job with him. This will turn out to be key for the film's success, because the common public probably cites Spock as the embodiment of Star Trek's dorkiness. It's gotta be a combination of the ears, the robotic dialogue, and the Dumb and Dumber-esque bowl-style haircut. Either way, Spock works in this movie. He is of the Vulcan species, which resides on the planet Vulcan. On Vulcan, logic rules all, and its inhabitants do not exhibit any sort of emotion (hence the robotic dialogue). However, Spock is not entirely Vulcan, he is the birth child of a Vulcan father and a Human mother, and exhibits emotion from time to time. This issue becomes a major driving point behind Spock's role in the film, and at the end of it all, even a hater such as myself can say I enjoyed this aspect of the movie. Leonard Nimoy's cameo as an elder version of Spock (yes, there is time travel in the movie, and it is complete bullshit) is also great, context aside.

 After that, it's all downhill. Kirk gets into a barfight with several Starfleet cadets, which attracts the attention of Captain Pike, who tells an inattentive Kirk to enlist because his dad did it. That's not enough to convince the sarcastic youngster, but when Kirk sees how cool the newly-constructed USS Enterprise looks in an embarrassingly-shallow sequence, he decides to join Starfleet. Essentially this is the pace of the entire film- things happen quickly and with little or no actual motive. No challenge or obstruction, either. And just when it seems like Kirk may face some level of adversity, somebody comes in from the future and tells him how to fix it, step by step. Three years into the academy now, Kirk, in what quickly establishes itself as "classically-Kirk fashion", gets himself on probation at the academy for alleged academic dishonesty and sleeps with a woman who vividly resembles the Ogre version of Fiona in the Shrek films.

During Kirk's disciplinary hearing for cheating (his accusor is Spock), Starfleet rececives a distress signal from Vulcan regarding a lightning storm. Kirk sneaks aboard the USS Enterprise for the rescue mission while Pike Captains the ship (Spock is his first officer). When they arrive at Vulcan, they find that their entire fleet has been destroyed, and Nero's ship is drilling into the planet's core. What results are a number of weak and cheap thrills that amounted to nothing more than a few head scratches as I left the theater. What I found most troublesome about the film was the time-travel narrative. I won't spoil anything, but about 30 minutes away from the closing credits, the film introduces a time-travel sideplot that attempts to tie up all its loose ends in the final act. This was among the cheapest ploys I have ever seen-- it insults the intelligence of even the most feeble-minded Trekkies. JJ, you had better not pull this shit with the Lost series finale. There's only one season left, the clock is ticking. Don't get any hair-brained ideas: time travel is not a cure-all. 

THE BOTTOM LINE: In the words of Roger Ebert: "Don't get me wrong. This is fun." You will have a good time at this movie, whether it is worth the price of admission is another debate. I expected this to be this summer's Iron Man and, in short, it isn't, and the box office numbers have shown that (Star Trek has grossed $147 million to date, Iron Man grossed $177 million in the same amount of time according to Box Office Mojo). At the end of the day, Abrams' much-awaited revamp is really nothing more than a face-lift-- the same ugly bone structure lies beneath the new faces. It didn't work for Joan Rivers, it won't work for a movie franchise, either.

EPIC Scale: 2.75/5

 TRAILER AVAILABLE AT: http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/startrek/hd/