One hundred years ago last month, a series of stories came out called Under the Moons of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs (yes, the Tarzan dude). They were later compiled and released in 1917 as a novel called A Princess of Mars. And now, I must confess, I'm geeking out this week due to the theatrical version of these stories coming out this weekend called John Carter.
I first read these books when I was fifteen while suffering from chicken pox. I needed to find something to keep my mind off the itching so I discovered some old 1960's paperbacks on a bookshelf in the basement. There were several of these Mars books by Burroughs so I decided to give them a try. I fell in love with the world of Barsoom. And now, thirty-six years later, I'm finally going to get to see this world come to life on the big screen. I'm trying hard not to wet myself just thinking about it.
So, in commemoration of the film, I reread A Princess of Mars last week. I'm sometimes a little nervous to read a childhood favorite again in fear of it not living up to my expectations. I wasn't disappointed. Reading that book made me feel like a teenager again, and maybe a little itchy, too. The world came alive and vivid for me and now I can't wait to get to the other books.
Now, I'm not expecting this movie to be much like the book, though I have been pleased to see in the cast list that all the characters from the book are there in some form. Even my beloved Woola (John Carter's Martian dog). I'm sure the story will be very different, though, and I'm okay with that. To be honest, the book's plot wasn't the most linear and seemed to meander a bit. It mainly consisted of John Carter having some great adventures and eventually winning the heart and hand of his beloved Dejah Thoris. I assume the movie will do at least that much. Oh, but one nice change I've seen in the trailers is that John Carter travels to Mars with his clothes on. In the book, he appeared buck naked.
What impressed me again about the book was the uniqueness of the world. I haven't read anything like this in our modern novels. I am amazed at how well Burroughs thought out the flora and fauna; something I didn't think they did a hundred years ago. He subscribed to the canal theory prevalent in the early 1900s and built a world around it. Burroughs even developed a science based on light that would allow the Martian airships to fly.
So, I'm counting down the days until the movie opens. I've even been tempted to go to the midnight showing, except I think I'm getting too old for that. All I know is that this movie has been a long time coming and I hope Andrew Stanton does it justice. If he carries some of that Pixar magic with him, though, it should be phenomenal. Whoops, I now think I need to go change my pants.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, May 7, 2010
Iron Man 2
I know, everyone and their dog is reviewing this movie. I'm just one of the dogs, or maybe one of the fleas on the dog.
Iron Man 2 gets the official Berin Stephens Big Toe Up (everyone else does thumbs). Very seldom, after a movie ends, do I want to turn back around and see it again. With this one I did, and I was almost willing skip a bathroom break. Of course, I had to get back out to the car and let the kids get some air. Actually, they went to see How to Train Your Dragon since I wasn't sure how safe IM2 would be for kidlings.
As far as content for kids, I was surprised at how little offensive stuff was there. It could have almost passed as a PG; almost. There was some language, Lord's name stuff and mild swear words. I heard an 's' word and there were a couple of bleeped f-bombs (which were actually pretty funny). There was some skin exposure, but most of what we saw was also in the trailer. And, of course, there was some innuendo weaved in throughout. There were no bed room scenes, thank goodness. It's just frustrating that with a few minor changes, this could have been a PG. For crying out loud, super hero movies are supposed to be for kids (and big kids like me).
Okay, to the movie itself. My biggest fear was that they would do a character reboot and we would totally lose the character arch that we saw Tony go through in IM1. Granted, Tony is back to his irreverent, fun-loving stuff, but he's still the man IM1 ends with. We get to experience a new character arch for him that expands and improves him even more. Many sequels have failed because they didn't do this right, but this time they nailed it.
And conflicts? Plenty, and not just the ones we were expecting. We start off being introduced to "Whiplash" and we find out why he has his grudge. To keep things interesting, though, they bring in more sources, like: the US government, Pepper, Colonel Rhodes, Hammer, and, most interestingly, Tony's body.
This movie had plenty of action, too. The car race was great. Also, in the trailer, we caught a glimpse of a great battle with Tony and War Machine fighting off a hoard of robot drones. The full scene didn't disappoint and has to be one of the greatest movie super hero fight scenes of all time.
So, that's my take. For parents who are wondering if they should take jr, check out kids-in-mind.com for more details. I look forward to being able to see this on DVD with Clearplay filters in place.
Iron Man 2 gets the official Berin Stephens Big Toe Up (everyone else does thumbs). Very seldom, after a movie ends, do I want to turn back around and see it again. With this one I did, and I was almost willing skip a bathroom break. Of course, I had to get back out to the car and let the kids get some air. Actually, they went to see How to Train Your Dragon since I wasn't sure how safe IM2 would be for kidlings.
As far as content for kids, I was surprised at how little offensive stuff was there. It could have almost passed as a PG; almost. There was some language, Lord's name stuff and mild swear words. I heard an 's' word and there were a couple of bleeped f-bombs (which were actually pretty funny). There was some skin exposure, but most of what we saw was also in the trailer. And, of course, there was some innuendo weaved in throughout. There were no bed room scenes, thank goodness. It's just frustrating that with a few minor changes, this could have been a PG. For crying out loud, super hero movies are supposed to be for kids (and big kids like me).
Okay, to the movie itself. My biggest fear was that they would do a character reboot and we would totally lose the character arch that we saw Tony go through in IM1. Granted, Tony is back to his irreverent, fun-loving stuff, but he's still the man IM1 ends with. We get to experience a new character arch for him that expands and improves him even more. Many sequels have failed because they didn't do this right, but this time they nailed it.
And conflicts? Plenty, and not just the ones we were expecting. We start off being introduced to "Whiplash" and we find out why he has his grudge. To keep things interesting, though, they bring in more sources, like: the US government, Pepper, Colonel Rhodes, Hammer, and, most interestingly, Tony's body.
This movie had plenty of action, too. The car race was great. Also, in the trailer, we caught a glimpse of a great battle with Tony and War Machine fighting off a hoard of robot drones. The full scene didn't disappoint and has to be one of the greatest movie super hero fight scenes of all time.
So, that's my take. For parents who are wondering if they should take jr, check out kids-in-mind.com for more details. I look forward to being able to see this on DVD with Clearplay filters in place.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Percy Jackson: Book vs Movie
I've been meaning to blog about the Percy Jackson books by Rick Riordan for a while. I just finished the series in January. I finally was motivated to read them because people kept telling me that my book reminded them of the Percy Jackson books.
First off, as I mentioned in my top ten books list, I loved the books. They were, for the most part, good clean fun. There was a consistent humor underlying the whole series that Harry Potter lost. The books managed to keep this lightness in spite of the heavy save-the-world-or-die aspects of it.
It was a fun romp through Greek mythology. I love mixed genres, so I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the Greek myth world getting mixed up with our 21st century one. I also like the fact that Percy Jackson was a do-something hero, unlike HP. He made decisions and took action without waiting for Hermoine to tell him what to do. If Percy and Harry went one-on-one, I think Percy would kick Harry's butt (ooh, movie idea! Kinda like alien vs predator).
So, today, we splurged and took the family to the Percy Jackson movie. Waste of money. Should have waited for the DVD. Now, I knew the movie would be quite a bit different. I just didn't realize that the entire plot would be changed. And the new plot wasn't all that well thought out. They should have just called this a "Re-envisioning of Percy Jackson."
My first complaint is that they made some of the monsters a little too scary-looking and detailed. I'm okay with them upping the age of the characters, but a large part of the Percy Jackson fan base are middle-grade readers. For instance, the Medusa scene went on too long. It was like, "Ooh, look at this cool special effect we can do with the snakes. Look, look, and keep looking for a really long time." The scene could have been more effective and suspenseful if we only got a quick look at the Medusa. But as it was, I think the scene was too drawn out for younger viewers (there was a whole row of them sitting in front of me). I would guess this is a big reason why the movie is not faring as well at the box office as expected. Message to Hollywood: MAKE MOVIES MORE FAMILY-FRIENDLY.
Maid and butler. Too much of the backstory was just told to us, instead of showing it or weaving it into the plot. For instance, when Chiron was first showing Percy his "cabin".
The antagonist was completely changed. This may not be a problem if they are not planning on doing any more movies, but if they are, they are going to have to completely re-write the plots to match the fact that they changed the villain in the first movie. If this is the only film, I think they dropped the ball. This could have been a profitable franchise like Harry Potter.
The pearl search became a major plot point that took up most of the film.
Capture the Flag. Who made up those rules? While Percy was duking it out with Annabeth and the other reds, someone else could have grabbed the flag. And then to have everybody stop and let him pick it up like "hail the conquering hero"? The objective is to capture the flag and take it to your base, not watch Percy kick butt and then, because he's such a nice guy, let him win.
Where did that woman come from at Auntie Em's? She was a total Star Trek red shirt, with no other purpose than to show us how dangerous Medusa was.
Keys in the visor of a car on display? Very convenient.
There were many little things left out of the world that could have been left in and not taken up any more time. Thalia's tree, strawberry fields, etc. They didn't need an explanation, but they were a part of the ambiance of the books that would have been nice to have. Mr. D. strolling through Camp Half-blood could have been entertaining, too.
It seems like there were other things, but I don't remember them now. I'm going to have to start taking a notebook to movies with me so I can jot them down as they happen.
Now, there were some things I liked. Grover did manage to provide some good comic relief. I especially loved his comment about the music of Nashville. Grover kept the movie at least mildly entertaining.
Even though this was a major change from the book, I liked that the reason why the gods didn't communicate with their children was because of a law from Zeus. The thing that bothered me the most about the books was the whole concept of the gods just having children with mortals and not caring much about them afterward. We have too many mortals doing that in our world today.
The special effects were good and almost invisible. Of course, I think this and other movies many times rely on the effects too much to tell the story (anybody hear about Star Wars I, II, and III?). But still, I'm a sucker for a pretty picture.
Percy Jackson's character came through mostly the same. His telling his step-father off was out of character (and a little maid and butler again), but other than that, it was close.
I liked the location of the entrance to Hades. Sometimes we find truth in fiction.
For more information, I did post on my website under Book Ratings my score for language, sex, and violence for the books. As I said, they are relatively clean. The seemingly high language score is mainly due to the use of the H-E-Double-toothpick-hounds that kept getting mentioned. If someone wants to get technical about usage, there really wasn't any swearing in the books. But the word was there.
First off, as I mentioned in my top ten books list, I loved the books. They were, for the most part, good clean fun. There was a consistent humor underlying the whole series that Harry Potter lost. The books managed to keep this lightness in spite of the heavy save-the-world-or-die aspects of it.
It was a fun romp through Greek mythology. I love mixed genres, so I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the Greek myth world getting mixed up with our 21st century one. I also like the fact that Percy Jackson was a do-something hero, unlike HP. He made decisions and took action without waiting for Hermoine to tell him what to do. If Percy and Harry went one-on-one, I think Percy would kick Harry's butt (ooh, movie idea! Kinda like alien vs predator).
So, today, we splurged and took the family to the Percy Jackson movie. Waste of money. Should have waited for the DVD. Now, I knew the movie would be quite a bit different. I just didn't realize that the entire plot would be changed. And the new plot wasn't all that well thought out. They should have just called this a "Re-envisioning of Percy Jackson."
My first complaint is that they made some of the monsters a little too scary-looking and detailed. I'm okay with them upping the age of the characters, but a large part of the Percy Jackson fan base are middle-grade readers. For instance, the Medusa scene went on too long. It was like, "Ooh, look at this cool special effect we can do with the snakes. Look, look, and keep looking for a really long time." The scene could have been more effective and suspenseful if we only got a quick look at the Medusa. But as it was, I think the scene was too drawn out for younger viewers (there was a whole row of them sitting in front of me). I would guess this is a big reason why the movie is not faring as well at the box office as expected. Message to Hollywood: MAKE MOVIES MORE FAMILY-FRIENDLY.
Maid and butler. Too much of the backstory was just told to us, instead of showing it or weaving it into the plot. For instance, when Chiron was first showing Percy his "cabin".
The antagonist was completely changed. This may not be a problem if they are not planning on doing any more movies, but if they are, they are going to have to completely re-write the plots to match the fact that they changed the villain in the first movie. If this is the only film, I think they dropped the ball. This could have been a profitable franchise like Harry Potter.
The pearl search became a major plot point that took up most of the film.
Capture the Flag. Who made up those rules? While Percy was duking it out with Annabeth and the other reds, someone else could have grabbed the flag. And then to have everybody stop and let him pick it up like "hail the conquering hero"? The objective is to capture the flag and take it to your base, not watch Percy kick butt and then, because he's such a nice guy, let him win.
Where did that woman come from at Auntie Em's? She was a total Star Trek red shirt, with no other purpose than to show us how dangerous Medusa was.
Keys in the visor of a car on display? Very convenient.
There were many little things left out of the world that could have been left in and not taken up any more time. Thalia's tree, strawberry fields, etc. They didn't need an explanation, but they were a part of the ambiance of the books that would have been nice to have. Mr. D. strolling through Camp Half-blood could have been entertaining, too.
It seems like there were other things, but I don't remember them now. I'm going to have to start taking a notebook to movies with me so I can jot them down as they happen.
Now, there were some things I liked. Grover did manage to provide some good comic relief. I especially loved his comment about the music of Nashville. Grover kept the movie at least mildly entertaining.
Even though this was a major change from the book, I liked that the reason why the gods didn't communicate with their children was because of a law from Zeus. The thing that bothered me the most about the books was the whole concept of the gods just having children with mortals and not caring much about them afterward. We have too many mortals doing that in our world today.
The special effects were good and almost invisible. Of course, I think this and other movies many times rely on the effects too much to tell the story (anybody hear about Star Wars I, II, and III?). But still, I'm a sucker for a pretty picture.
Percy Jackson's character came through mostly the same. His telling his step-father off was out of character (and a little maid and butler again), but other than that, it was close.
I liked the location of the entrance to Hades. Sometimes we find truth in fiction.
For more information, I did post on my website under Book Ratings my score for language, sex, and violence for the books. As I said, they are relatively clean. The seemingly high language score is mainly due to the use of the H-E-Double-toothpick-hounds that kept getting mentioned. If someone wants to get technical about usage, there really wasn't any swearing in the books. But the word was there.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Clueless in Hollywood
This is something that has been eating at me for a while, so I'll go ahead and rant about it. First off, a disclaimer. When I mention 'Hollywood' here, I'm using it as an abbreviation for the less than brilliant people there. Granted, there are some geniuses and good people there putting out good things.
Now that that's out of the way, here is something that confuses me. In the retail world, when you create a product, you want to make something as universally useful as possible so that it will appeal to more people. Or at least, the companies that care about quality do. It comes down to bottom line: the more sales, the more money you make. Why doesn't Hollywood get this principle?
I've been stewing about this since The Land of the Lost movie. When I heard about it, I got excited. I grew up watching the old Sid and Marty Kroft version and loved it. It had freakin' dinosaurs, for crying out loud! Every kid my age at the time loved anything about dinosaurs, even if they did look like sock puppets. So, here was my chance to share something from my childhood with my kids.
Not so fast. Then I saw the trailers. My excitement decreased. It was looking like it would be a raunchy, dirty movie. I still held out hope, though. Then, once it came out, I checked the Kids-In-Mind website, which told me that it was NOT a kid-friendly film, nor was it even adult friendly. Suffice it to say, I never saw it.
The week before, the SyFy channel had a marathon of the old TV shows. It was interesting to see that a lot of the episodes were written by the same people who wrote the original Star Trek shows. I think the first episode was even written by Walter Koenig (aka Chekov). Anyway, my younger kids loved the shows (the teenagers just rolled their eyes). This made me realize that Hollywood really blew it. They could have written a really dumb script for the movie and could have been reasonably successful if THEY HAD ONLY MADE IT FAMILY FRIENDLY. As it was, by making it a raunch-fest, the movie didn't pull in enough box office to cover the cost of making it. It cost 100 million, and it pulled in 64 million. Ouch.
Okay, so Hollywood made one mistake. Well, a couple of other movies pop to mind: The Brady Bunch Movie and The Beverly Hillbillies. I never saw them, but they were both rated PG-13, which in my mind translates as family-UNfriendly. They also both flopped. However, my kids love the old TV versions of those shows, and if the movies were cleaner, perhaps Hollywood would have received a good return on investment.
And then there's TV. Last season, they rolled out the new and improved version of Knight Rider. When my youngest son caught wind of that, he got very excited. A talking car? How cool is that to a young mind? Well, I watched the first episode and saw that it was NOT a kid show. Surprise of all surprises, the show did not survive long.
I think that is also what brought about the demise of Star Trek: Enterprise. At least with the other four series, I could watch them with my kids and not have to worry too much. Enterprise was not like that. Some of the episodes were okay, but I didn't know if they would be child-safe until after I watched them. I think this is one of the reasons why the show didn't get the ratings they wanted. At the same time, some of the episodes were very thought-provoking and well-written. They were just a little too violent and risque for a broader audience.
I don't even want to launch into the new Battlestar Galactica. I could rant about that for a long time.
Now, if Hollywood wants to make a gritty movie about warfare in the trenches with all it's inherent grit, fine. I don't have a problem with that, even though I don't want to see it. What really gripes me is when they take what was originally a good, clean idea and decide that it needs to be dirtier. To my knowledge, this formula has never worked. So why do they keep trying it? It seems to me, either they are really stupid or else they have an agenda, but that might be a topic for another time.
Now that that's out of the way, here is something that confuses me. In the retail world, when you create a product, you want to make something as universally useful as possible so that it will appeal to more people. Or at least, the companies that care about quality do. It comes down to bottom line: the more sales, the more money you make. Why doesn't Hollywood get this principle?
I've been stewing about this since The Land of the Lost movie. When I heard about it, I got excited. I grew up watching the old Sid and Marty Kroft version and loved it. It had freakin' dinosaurs, for crying out loud! Every kid my age at the time loved anything about dinosaurs, even if they did look like sock puppets. So, here was my chance to share something from my childhood with my kids.
Not so fast. Then I saw the trailers. My excitement decreased. It was looking like it would be a raunchy, dirty movie. I still held out hope, though. Then, once it came out, I checked the Kids-In-Mind website, which told me that it was NOT a kid-friendly film, nor was it even adult friendly. Suffice it to say, I never saw it.
The week before, the SyFy channel had a marathon of the old TV shows. It was interesting to see that a lot of the episodes were written by the same people who wrote the original Star Trek shows. I think the first episode was even written by Walter Koenig (aka Chekov). Anyway, my younger kids loved the shows (the teenagers just rolled their eyes). This made me realize that Hollywood really blew it. They could have written a really dumb script for the movie and could have been reasonably successful if THEY HAD ONLY MADE IT FAMILY FRIENDLY. As it was, by making it a raunch-fest, the movie didn't pull in enough box office to cover the cost of making it. It cost 100 million, and it pulled in 64 million. Ouch.
Okay, so Hollywood made one mistake. Well, a couple of other movies pop to mind: The Brady Bunch Movie and The Beverly Hillbillies. I never saw them, but they were both rated PG-13, which in my mind translates as family-UNfriendly. They also both flopped. However, my kids love the old TV versions of those shows, and if the movies were cleaner, perhaps Hollywood would have received a good return on investment.
And then there's TV. Last season, they rolled out the new and improved version of Knight Rider. When my youngest son caught wind of that, he got very excited. A talking car? How cool is that to a young mind? Well, I watched the first episode and saw that it was NOT a kid show. Surprise of all surprises, the show did not survive long.
I think that is also what brought about the demise of Star Trek: Enterprise. At least with the other four series, I could watch them with my kids and not have to worry too much. Enterprise was not like that. Some of the episodes were okay, but I didn't know if they would be child-safe until after I watched them. I think this is one of the reasons why the show didn't get the ratings they wanted. At the same time, some of the episodes were very thought-provoking and well-written. They were just a little too violent and risque for a broader audience.
I don't even want to launch into the new Battlestar Galactica. I could rant about that for a long time.
Now, if Hollywood wants to make a gritty movie about warfare in the trenches with all it's inherent grit, fine. I don't have a problem with that, even though I don't want to see it. What really gripes me is when they take what was originally a good, clean idea and decide that it needs to be dirtier. To my knowledge, this formula has never worked. So why do they keep trying it? It seems to me, either they are really stupid or else they have an agenda, but that might be a topic for another time.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Review of Up
When I first saw the trailers for Disney/Pixar's Up, I thought that it didn't look very interesting. Some cranky old guy riding in a house carried by a bazillion balloons? But then, I thought, Pixar has yet to make anything but a good movie. In my opinion, Bugs Life, Wall-E, and Ratatouille, were good, but not great. But then the Toy Story movies, Monsters Inc., and (my all-time favorite) The Incredibles were all phenomenal. So I decided to give Up a chance.
I wasn't disappointed. One thing I realized is that Pixar is masterful at developing character. From the previews, I did not care too much about the old man. I had no way of connecting with him. The first five minutes of the movie created that connection and got you to really care about him, and even want to cry for him. This is the essence of a good story. A movie could have the greatest plot in the world, but if you don't connect with the character, it's boring. Because of their character development, Up was not boring.
I can't name them all, but there were many little things that happened that made you think, "I can relate to that." The humor was based on real life, even if some of the plot seemed incredible. All in all, I highly recommend this movie and it is well worth watching at the theater.
Recently, I found out Pixar is starting to work on their first live action movie, John Carter of Mars, based on the books by Edgar Rice Bourroughs. Since these were some of my favorite books when I was a kid, I hope they continue the same story excellence they've shown with their animation.
I wasn't disappointed. One thing I realized is that Pixar is masterful at developing character. From the previews, I did not care too much about the old man. I had no way of connecting with him. The first five minutes of the movie created that connection and got you to really care about him, and even want to cry for him. This is the essence of a good story. A movie could have the greatest plot in the world, but if you don't connect with the character, it's boring. Because of their character development, Up was not boring.
I can't name them all, but there were many little things that happened that made you think, "I can relate to that." The humor was based on real life, even if some of the plot seemed incredible. All in all, I highly recommend this movie and it is well worth watching at the theater.
Recently, I found out Pixar is starting to work on their first live action movie, John Carter of Mars, based on the books by Edgar Rice Bourroughs. Since these were some of my favorite books when I was a kid, I hope they continue the same story excellence they've shown with their animation.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Angels and Demons movie
I saw Angels and Demons (or is that Angles and Deacons?) this morning and it will be the subject of my second movie review. I would have to classify this movie as 'okay'. It wasn't wonderful and it wasn't bad. The biggest problem is that it didn't really engage my emotions. That could be because I just read the book, so I had a good idea what was happening. I've been analyzing and trying to figure out why it didn't move me very much, and I think a big reason was because the antagonist didn't seem to have strong motives for their actions. In the book, it was clear, though, and I thought the ending pleasantly surprising. The movie, though, lost it somewhere. Probably because, for the sake of time, they cut too much out.
A lot of the cuts in the plot and characters made sense for time and simplicity, and for the most part, I think they did well at streamlining. It's just that they needed something to make the antagonist's actions make more sense, even if it was something not in the book. Towards the end of the movie, I got a little excited when I thought they might end it with a different surprise ending, but they didn't. The betrayal at the end just didn't have any teeth.
Of course, one of my main concerns about movies is content. Angels and Demons got a Kids in Mind rating of 1.7.3. I have no idea where they got the '1' rating for sex, since the worst thing that happened was that the protagonists held hands. The '3' language rating was probably deserved, though I don't remember much. Of course, we hear so many of the 'd' and 'h' words all the time, it's easy to block them out. The worst aspect were the gory scenes, so the '7' is well deserved. This was not a movie for the squeamish. One trick that worked for me was to almost close my eyes so that the screen was blurry. That way, I could see enough of what was going on without the vivid detail (call me a wimp). Overall, though, I think the movie was a kinder, gentler version of the book which had a lot of language issues and was more gruesome.
Bottom line: See it if you don't mind gory deaths and are mildly in need of entertainment. Otherwise, wait until it's on DVD where it can be watched with a Clearplay filter.
A lot of the cuts in the plot and characters made sense for time and simplicity, and for the most part, I think they did well at streamlining. It's just that they needed something to make the antagonist's actions make more sense, even if it was something not in the book. Towards the end of the movie, I got a little excited when I thought they might end it with a different surprise ending, but they didn't. The betrayal at the end just didn't have any teeth.
Of course, one of my main concerns about movies is content. Angels and Demons got a Kids in Mind rating of 1.7.3. I have no idea where they got the '1' rating for sex, since the worst thing that happened was that the protagonists held hands. The '3' language rating was probably deserved, though I don't remember much. Of course, we hear so many of the 'd' and 'h' words all the time, it's easy to block them out. The worst aspect were the gory scenes, so the '7' is well deserved. This was not a movie for the squeamish. One trick that worked for me was to almost close my eyes so that the screen was blurry. That way, I could see enough of what was going on without the vivid detail (call me a wimp). Overall, though, I think the movie was a kinder, gentler version of the book which had a lot of language issues and was more gruesome.
Bottom line: See it if you don't mind gory deaths and are mildly in need of entertainment. Otherwise, wait until it's on DVD where it can be watched with a Clearplay filter.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Star Trek movie
Having a blog gives me an opportunity to live a dream: to be a movie critic. So, this morning, I checked out the matinee of the new Star Trek movie.
My initial response is: it made me mad. I can't go into too much detail without giving away the plot, so I'll wait until later to do that. Now, it didn't make me mad because of the different actors and changed set or anything like that. Just suffice it to say, now none of the old t.v. series exist. There's now no original series, Next Generation, Voyager or Deep Space Nine. They will now not happen. Okay, we could say that they are all existing fine in some alternate universe, but I'm tired of that line. It's been over-used. It just looks like the producers want a new sand box to play in because they didn't like the restrictions placed on the old one.
As for the movie itself, I was pleasantly surprised. It was a fun action romp. After watching the trailers, I was afraid it would turn into Star Trek: 90210. It had some great one-liners that payed homage to the original series and their characters. And, of course, the effects were great. My one complaint about them is the 'documentary style' camera work for the combat scenes. I prefer a good, solid camera angle. It doesn't make it more realistic to me to have a shaky camera look.
As far as the actors, I felt they nailed McCoy and Spock. I'm not sold on Kirk. I enjoyed the Chekov character, though he seemed a little too Wesley Crusher-like. The other characters were portrayed okay, though I'm not wild about the new Uhura personality. I liked the more spiritual type character that Nichelle Nichols portrayed.
One of my big concerns about movies is all the extra garbage they put into them. Overall, the language and violence didn't bother me, and there wasn't that much sex, other than that one stupid scene that had no importance to the plot, but was only put there to so that they could have a spicey blurb that they could insert into the trailers. That irked me about Iron Man, too.
This is something that I don't understand about Hollywood. In any other market, you want to create a product that can be as universal to as many people as possible. When they keep putting all this offensive material into movies, it just turns me off. I almost didn't go to this movie because of the Kids-in-mind rating of 5-6-4. I'm not going to let my kids go (so they are missing out on those sales) mainly because of that one stupid bedroom scene. I believe if movies would just cut out the '13' stuff and make it PG, their sales would be a lot better. Don't they want to make more money?
So, my final recommendation: wait for the DVD and watch it with a Clearplay filter, then it could be a fun film. And then try not to get annoyed when the Star Trek you know and love no longer exists.
My initial response is: it made me mad. I can't go into too much detail without giving away the plot, so I'll wait until later to do that. Now, it didn't make me mad because of the different actors and changed set or anything like that. Just suffice it to say, now none of the old t.v. series exist. There's now no original series, Next Generation, Voyager or Deep Space Nine. They will now not happen. Okay, we could say that they are all existing fine in some alternate universe, but I'm tired of that line. It's been over-used. It just looks like the producers want a new sand box to play in because they didn't like the restrictions placed on the old one.
As for the movie itself, I was pleasantly surprised. It was a fun action romp. After watching the trailers, I was afraid it would turn into Star Trek: 90210. It had some great one-liners that payed homage to the original series and their characters. And, of course, the effects were great. My one complaint about them is the 'documentary style' camera work for the combat scenes. I prefer a good, solid camera angle. It doesn't make it more realistic to me to have a shaky camera look.
As far as the actors, I felt they nailed McCoy and Spock. I'm not sold on Kirk. I enjoyed the Chekov character, though he seemed a little too Wesley Crusher-like. The other characters were portrayed okay, though I'm not wild about the new Uhura personality. I liked the more spiritual type character that Nichelle Nichols portrayed.
One of my big concerns about movies is all the extra garbage they put into them. Overall, the language and violence didn't bother me, and there wasn't that much sex, other than that one stupid scene that had no importance to the plot, but was only put there to so that they could have a spicey blurb that they could insert into the trailers. That irked me about Iron Man, too.
This is something that I don't understand about Hollywood. In any other market, you want to create a product that can be as universal to as many people as possible. When they keep putting all this offensive material into movies, it just turns me off. I almost didn't go to this movie because of the Kids-in-mind rating of 5-6-4. I'm not going to let my kids go (so they are missing out on those sales) mainly because of that one stupid bedroom scene. I believe if movies would just cut out the '13' stuff and make it PG, their sales would be a lot better. Don't they want to make more money?
So, my final recommendation: wait for the DVD and watch it with a Clearplay filter, then it could be a fun film. And then try not to get annoyed when the Star Trek you know and love no longer exists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)