minor trekker on star trek

omgponies!! star trek. star trek.
if I could have a young picard... drool will fall from my mouth. different crew. understood.

I can't even form the words. besides, yes, I liked it. a lot.

one criticism- with all ST movies though, I'm not that preturbed with the villain. nero was not a 'bad guy,' in fact he was a sympathetic character. I wanted eric bana to be a bad, bad man. kahn will be baddest man in all the universe I guess. even the borg can't top him.

the fact that this was filmed like an action movie rather than a large scale tv show. the difference is palapable. so shiny, so fresh and clean. great lines and angles. great use of space- actual outer space. inertion of planets from a black hole. totally believable. INERT!

the cast then, the cast. no complaints. I loved chekov. same bad accent! ha. and yelchin is actually russian too. john cho, even though he is not japanese, the fighting! ah, the fighting. loved it! simon pegg, adorable. who else, who else? the green alien, ha. cheeky! of course karl urban as bones-- perfection. absolute perfection.

I know this isn't a good review. seriously. I liked it a lot so I have no words.......... no. words. I'll see it again to form better thoughts. promise.

I have habits

there are few movies that I can watch again and again and again. by that I mean, back to back watch it again right after I saw it. 'the prestige' is one of these. the first time I saw it, I rented it, I watched it three times in one day. just today I watched 'grosse point blank' twice.
another one these movies is 'brick.' has any one else seen this? I feel like I'm the only who has seen it.... it is beautiful, washed in blue. has the amazing joseph gordon levitt and it has this great old timey gangster language. which is why the first time I saw it, again rented, I watched it back to back. first to see it, then again to understand it. I love it. rival gangs. cute boys. beautiful girls. money. drugs. teenagers acting like adults. any one else seen this?
some great angles and movement. nice transitions and natural lighting. the camera placement through out our journey with brendon as he searches for emily leaves the viewer cold and nervous. (or maybe just me.) trying to get there... what happened to her?

eta. link the av club did a write up about it recently. our brain waves musta been in sync. not nsync. again I ask, any body seen this? I really think you should.

anticipation

movies I am most excited to see this summer:
STAR TREK
500 Days of Summer
Rudo y Cursi
Harry Potter 6
Moon
GI Joe
The Hangover
All Good Things
eta:
Public Enemies
The Brothers Bloom
ben convinced me of:
Inglourius Basterds
and who am I kidding, I will see this:
X Men Origins: Wolverine

this is kind of like, may through september.... a long stretch of summer.
lets all go to the lobby, lets all go the looobbby, and get ourselves a snack!

You people don't understand - I'm not locked in here with you - you're locked in here with me!

Watchmen was ridiculously faithful to its source material, something required for a work that means so much to so many. Which made it a bit like reading the graphic novel for me. And I think that's the point. It was an incredible movie based on an incredible graphic novel. But it didn't really add or change anything with its change to a new medium. Which is probably fine. But I find myself asking what the point was, exactly. Kind of like remaking Psycho. If you don't make any real choices, are you really making a separate work of art? Having said that, I thought the very few divergent choices that were made seemed to be made at random and for no reason (take the "practical joke" at the end, for instance. A claim has been made by Brock Sampson that it would take too long in a movie to explain the ending from the book, but I don't buy that. I think that they take the same amount of time to explain. So it was just random for me, but, maybe, this is exactly the sort of choice I want to make it a different work. The movie, on some level, makes more sense and a better point than the book does because of this change to the ending. So.). On the other hand, the choices that had to be made, like with the soundtrack, were made extremely well, in my opinion. Am I thinking too much about this?

Perhaps I'm too harsh to a movie that I thoroughly enjoyed (and saw twice yesterday in IMAX). I thought this movie was great. The casting was excellent and even the one I didn't like (Veidt) got better upon a second viewing. It was well-acted and well-shot. Just good.

To speak to both the book and the movie, I believe that what makes this not only good, but important, is that it takes as its subject the unimaginable horror that men are capable of and it shows that, on the other side, even the men who fight this horror are often engulfed in it and imperfect (to say the least) in their pursuit of better things. It tells a human story - horrible, dark and troubling, but with incredible meaning and great hope brought about from the most Faustian decisions possible. I still don't know what I think about the events of the story and I've read it once and seen the movie twice.

And Melissa, to answer your question: these superheros are like the new Batman - good technology plus good workout routines and training make you stronger and better than your opponents. But these are still men and women, mostly (even the blue guy used to be human). Apparently, properly motivated and trained human beings can kick the ass of a whole string of villains in a dark alley or a prison. Also, it doesn't hurt to be a sociopath, like Rorschach.

who watches the watchmen?

I watched the 'watchmen', and I liked it.
I didn't expect to. all the reviews have been very negative and harsh. I'm only less than a quarter of the way through the novel and I could hear line by line direct quotes so I'm making as ass of myself and assuming that most of it was a true interpretation with the novel. isn't that what the fanboys wanted? I don't understand the backlash.
the one thing I didn't understand maybe because I'm dense, I don't know. these aren't super heroes. they don't have magic powers- well one. they're ordinary men and women who decided to better themselves to better their city. but I was confused at how strong they were fighting wise... just one man and woman who apparently has some training can take down a street gang in a dark alley? I just wanted an explanation of their talents. as a movie watcher I am to suspend my disbelief and accept that they are stronger, faster, better, smarter than any of us regular folk. thats okay. I can accept that.
my favorite part, hands down was rorschach- jackie earl haley. and in my opinion, if heath ledger can win an oscar for playing the joker, it would be a shame if this performance were to be overlooked. thats how I felt with michael shannon in 'revolutionary road,' too- I was so happy he was nominated. JEH stole the movie for me and made it so intense and just exciting to watch. and during trailers I was disappointed in malin ackerman but they didn't do her justice. I was fine with all the actors.
and the look of it- the gritty, dark 80s. theres nothing to complain about here either.
it was a fine story. if not a little long....

matt?

also. these bunnies are funny. every time I see their disapproving faces I laugh. oh bunnies. you're so judgemental!

fanboys

just a reccomendation- go see 'fanboys' its pretty awesome.

Twilight

another disapproval. this time of 'twilight.' BORING says the bunny. so very boring. I giggled at inappropriate, cheesy times. I shook my head at the staring, the minutes of staring that went on between the two leads. and I sighed heavily at the lack of anything happening.
I am reading the book currently. I made plans to see it before someone lent me the book, so I am only 100 pages from the end. 100 pages from the book getting anywhere. the book is boring so the movie is boring. I get it. at least the movie doesn't shy away from the book too much. there are some liberties with the timeline but the point gets across. she smells wonderful and he loves her for it. and he is smoldering hot and she loves him for it. and they stare at eachother for hours. yep. in a meadow. in class. while driving. just stare, carebear stare.
they are all pretty people, in a pretty locale, with pretty cars and pretty skills. I'm not saying its not pretty or good to look at. just underwhelming.

but the plus side to all this is I saw the new trailer for harry potter. exciting stuff. and the trailer for the unborn! OH NOES! I have severe obsession and disgust about vanished twin syndrome! and parasitic twins! and chimerism is facinating and scary. so the unborn looks so neat and frightening!

choke

I know we don't really update this. but I just wanted to say I was slightly disapointed in choke. I love, love, love the book. so I have a natural bias. but I love sam rockwell. and I see it, he is victor mancini.
but... I kept waiting for the film to be more--- MORE. there was something lacking. to me it was slow, not very evenly paced. and it looked like a 'rom com'. as in, no exciting colors, or chemical treatments, no exciting shots or angles. no fx. the best shot was the lingering shot at the end with the couple totally making out in the airplane bathroom. the way it lingered, it made the audience uncomfortable voyeurs. nothing else in the movie was like that. no dynamism, nothing exciting to watch.
I do not want to compare this film with fight club. but in this case I must. they treatment they gave the look of that film-- SO fit the book.
this book was not a boring 'rom com'. so why make it look that way?
I love sam, kelly, angelica. they were great actors. I can't argue with any of the liberties taken with the book to script. I liked the story. my main complaint is how it looked. I'm not saying every movie should have fx. not every movie should be made to look like it was created and treated in a computer. but some stories, call for it. some stories call for an exciting, forward moving look. and I thought this book, this script needed that.