‘Abrams takes charge of the franchise to boldly go where no other director has gone before’

It’s extremely original. I’m not referring to the plot or the direction or the wondrous special-effects or the cast.  I’m referring to the notion of reinvention or re-mythologizing of a classic series sacred to so many. It’s a bold move. Things happen in this “Star Trek” prequel that are new and surprising. You can’t study for this “Star Trek” and know what to expect. You must forget what you think you know about the Starfleet crew because this adaptation brings about many changes and twists.

“Star Trek”, aside from having a humorous side to it, brings viewers back to the time of the original science-fiction series (although the sets look quite different from those of the 60s). The deck of the Enterprise has been revamped but feels just as neat. Space combat has never looked this good on the big screen before. The opening catapults viewers in the middle of a spectacular galactic battle that feels very real. In the opening minutes, we learn about George Kirk, the father of James T. Kirk.  Kirk Sr., we learn, was captain of the Enterprise for a mere twelve minutes and yet he was still able to save the lives of 800 crew members before sacrificing his own.

Skip to the future. James has grown up (and he inherited his father’s looks) but is somewhat of a rebel – walking into a bar and starting a fight seems so natural to him. But there are some at Starfleet who feel that he was destined for greater things. One believes that  James (Chris Pine) could someday in the near future make for an admirable captain like his father…of the USS Enterprise. Put to the challenge, James accepts to enlist in Starfleet and vows to ace all tests in less time than it took his father.

Of course, there is Spock (Zachary Quinto). Would this be a successful movie without Spock? I don’t think Trekkies would accept it. Spock plays a Spock that is somewhat familiar but, like all the wonderful actors in this film, Quinto makes Spock his own character without ever really trying to mimic Leonard Nimoy. The same could be said about Kirk and Leonard “Bones” McCoy (Karl Urban) though this McCoy still finds the need to remind Jim and others that’s he’s a doctor, not a physicist or a bricklayer or a mechanic, etc.

I cannot give away too many details.  Those who haven’t seen the film deserve to see it and draw their own opinion.  I suspect fans will be divided. There are those who would argue that certain things can’t be tampered with, especially a mythology that creator Gene Roddenberry devoted a great deal of his life to. However exciting Abrams’ revision, some may be dissatisfied by changes that involve the characters and events that not only affect them but those closest to them as well. There is also the  incorporation of a love story between two crew members aboard the USS Enterprise and, suffice it to say, this time it doesn’t involve Kirk.

J.J. Abrams is a respected Hollywood figure. In an article for Time Magazine, Tom Cruise said: “It’s hard to convey with brevity the extraordinary experience of knowing and working with J.J. Abrams.”  It’s always easy to admire a director who works hard. Abrams here takes a concept and executes it with thought and a lot of care. He enjoys making movies and there’s not a second in this film that suggests otherwise.  He’s so involved in the filmmaking process and getting it right that he makes room for a legend in a film dominated by youngsters. How much classier can you get than that?

‘Leave it to Langdon’

Robert Langdon is no stranger when it comes to mysteries involving the Catholic Church, codes, and symbols. Here we find the Harvard symbologist on a daring mission in Vatican City. He has but a few hours to discover the location of a ticking bomb. The bomb, we’re told, is made from a substance called “anti-matter.” What is anti-matter exactly? Vittoria explains that a tiny substance can eliminate Vatican City and half of Rome. Langdon races through the streets of Vatican City, in buildings, through secret passageways, and even in the Vatican archives. He is something of a wonder. He spots symbols on the ground, in books, in statues, and quickly makes enough connections to bring him the next clue and ultimately closer to the truth. Tom Hanks recently joked that if he were to compete with James Bonds, Indiana Jones or Sherlock Holmes, he would outsmart them. I believe him.

“Angels and Demons” is based on another of Dan Brown’s successful novels. We know about the mediatic storm surrounding the film. Ron Howard was banned from Vatican City and not allowed to film in and around the Vatican. But yet, watching the film, no one will be able to spot a reconstructed set. The set decoration is outstanding and it serves as the backdrop of a political/religious mystery.

Ewan McGregor stars as Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, a priest who is concerned not only about the safety of the Vatican’s Cardinals but of the millions united in St. Peter’s Square for the unveiling of the new Pope. With the Conclave open, four candidates have been considered. But after each are mysteriously murdered, Langdon sees similarities between the murders which could spell out the return of the Illuminati. Langdon is joined by Vittoria Vetra (Ayelet Zurer). Early on in the film, we learn that Vetra was part of a scientific experiment related to the creation of anti-matter. But when a physicist  in the laboratory is murdered and a canister of anti-matter is missing, she and Langdon embark on a journey to discover who could be behind the plot to destroy Vatican City. They race against time (and we get the usual time reminders throughout) to prevent catastrophe.

The film reunites actor Tom Hanks and director Ron Howard who proved with “The Da Vinci Code” that they could make good thrillers. “Angels and Demons” is not any different. In fact, unlike “Da Vinci”, “Angels and Demons” cuts to the chase and incorporates more action and thrills. Consider a scene where Langdon is trapped with a guard in one of the Vatican’s archival facilities. The power is cut and an electric display on the wall reveals that the oxygen level is running lower by the second. Without electricity, the men cannot escape through the electric doors. How does Langdon get himself out of this one?

The ads for the film are not as revealing as I had imagined they would be. The film, like “Da Vinci”, has many twists and turns and the real mystery is only revealed in the last twenty or so minutes. However implausible the process of the investigation is, the findings and connections, Langdon makes for a strong American hero. He is intelligent. We know that his knowledge goes beyond symbols and codes. He references Chaucer and Shakespeare and knows his religion well although he questions faith.

The film condenses a great deal of material into a two-hour running time. Consequently, parts of  Brown’s novel were left out of the script. I suspect anyone who’s read the novel and enjoyed it will want to go back to it to relive a certain excitement that the film fails to evoke. I won’t deny that there is suspense and I won’t deny that the story is gripping. There is enough smart dialogue and suspense to satisfy any intellect or anyone who is interested in secret societies (in this case the Illuminati). But the book paints its own magical scenery and somehow Langdon always seems more involved in the novel than he does on screen. Still, there’s no doubt in my mind that the best actor for the part is Tom Hanks. I think Brown would agree that he has the qualities of Langdon. He fits Brown’s description from “The Da Vinci Code” (“Harrison Ford in Harris tweed”)  To top it off, Hanks suits the image of the intellect and he’s a likable protagonist. He’s smart, funny, and persistent. If there’s a problem somewhere in the world that no one has an answer for, I expect Langdon to show up and solve it.

‘But, what about his origins?’

“X-Men Origins: Wolverine” delivers what its ads promised it would: tons of action, including a death-defying leap onto a helicopter, a motorcycle stunt that makes Ethan Hunt look like an amateur, and numerous duels with other mutants. Yes, the hero of the film takes a beating. He gets thrown around, he gets back up, he vows to fight on, and he never quits. On that level, the film excels. But what about Wolverine, the character? What about his back story? The film delivers action and amusing one-liners you’d expect from a character like Wolverine (a character that Hugh Jackman was born to play) but what about his origins as the title suggests? The film shows how Wolverine got his name and the process which gave him a near-indestructible body. But is all that enough? Certainly not.

Wolverine came from a troubled home. The opening scene offers a small glimpse into his childhood. As a youngster, he not only witnessed a killing in his household but took someone’s life out of anger before running away from home with his brother, Victor aka Sabretooth (Liev Schreiber). We learn that Wolverine, first known as Logan, served in the army, and partook in several wars, including World Wars I and II and the Vietnam War as well. That’s about as much as we learn about our hero before we embark with him on his personal journey of revenge.

The superhero franchise is a delicate one. Nearly all Marvel adaptations have been box-office hits and Wolverine will undoubtedly follow with a strong audience attendance.  One sometimes wonders if these films merely exist for the sole purpose of generating revenue.  Whether “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” is about entertainment or not is questionable. And I say this because of the fact that fans get less here when they deserve more. Fans have been waiting tirelessly for months to see this adaptation, to learn about the famed superhero’s past, and to see if the filmmakers would follow the mythology of the Stan Lee comic books. “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” focuses mainly on action and a romantic subplot instead of diving into the mythological universe of the superhero.

Special-effects aficionados will want to see this movie. Many sequences, however implausible, are kinetic and exciting. One of the most spectacular duels takes place on a large cement structure. It’s gloriously directed, as glorious as a light-saber battle from one of Lucas’ Star Wars movies (not that I’m comparing the ingenuity of “Star Wars” to the mediocrity of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine”).  The battle is entertaining.

Fun is probably the word that best describes the film. It’s about high-octane action, about Hugh Jackman, about the intense workout he underwent to muscle-up for the role, and about the superhero’s ability to continually avoid being defeated by any foe that challenges him. If you go into the film expecting action, you’ll find what you’re looking for. Anyone who expects a layered story with great revelations may be disappointed.

Wolverine is not a bad mutant. We know this from the comic books and from the X-Men movies. In his eyes we see a burning passion for revenge but we know which side he’s on. And his yearning for vengeance (as a superhero) is somewhat justified. We know that the people he seeks are villainous and he spends the majority of the time seeking them. That’s the film, in a nutshell. That said, wouldn’t it have been fairer in this case to name the film something along the lines of “Wolverine: Quest for Justice”?

The Uninvited ***1/2: I enjoyed this movie because it not only works as a horror film but as a psychological study as well. It’s full of surprises, the cast being one, particularly Emily Browning who delivers one of the most convincing performances ever in a horror film. She’s a gifted actress, fresh, with a beautiful innocent appearance.  If you like horror films or thrillers with twists and turns, see “The Uninvited.”

Yes Man **1/2: Jim Carrey is always funny but sometimes even he can save the film from failing. I enjoyed the casting of Zooey Deschanel who deserves more roles. She is stunning to watch on screen and there is a nice chemistry between her and Carrey. Terence Stamp also manages to squeeze in a few laughs as a YES guru who won’t take NO for an answer. The film should have centered on Carrey’s reliance on the word NO and his rehabilitation towards a YES attitude but the story only spends a few minutes on this issue and then focuses on a love story that has nothing to do with saying YES or NO.

Frost/Nixon ****: Anyone who doesn’t know about the Frost/Nixon interviews must see this movie. David Frost (played here by Michael Sheen) was the host of a satirical BBC program called That Was The Week That Was. In May 1977, Frost convinced the then-impeached Richard Nixon to agree to a three-part televised interview. The interviews drew an impressive audience. Forty five million viewers watched in America alone as Frost questioned Nixon on everything from Vietnam to China to the abuse of power right down to the Watergate scandal. The third and final interview is the main attraction. The film takes viewers behind the scenes to recreate the excitement of a political era and the drama surrounding the historical interview. Frank Langela portrays Nixon with unparalleled accuracy. The film is so finely directed (Ron Howard) and acted that you’d swear you were watching the real interviews. Yes, that accurate.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona **1/2: No one understands the complexities of love better than Woody Allen. The film unfolds in Barcelona, an appropriate setting for a romantic film. The landscape of the city is as attractive as the cast which includes Javier Bardem, Scarlett Johansson, and Penelope Cruz. The film contains a great deal of good dialogue and enough situations to keep viewers interested although it puts no spin on the love triangle scenario. The film is 96 minutes long but feels longer. Woody Allen films are usually original but here the writer/director avoids experimentation. The end result is a very ordinary love “triangle” story. We’ve seen this kind of film before. Alfonso Cuaron’s “Y Tu Mama Tambien” (2001) did it better.

Milk ****: “Milk” is the inspiring true story of an inspiring humanitarian and activist. Harvey Milk (portrayed by Sean Penn) was man with morals and integrity. At the age of 40, he was drawn into politics. His main objective was to fight for gay rights. He didn’t just represent himself but the entire gay community, particularly the community in California. Milk made history by becoming the first openly-gay supervisor of California. “Milk” is a story about hope and courage. It is moving and anyone who believes homosexuality is a brain dysfunction or some sort of disease should see the film even if only to hear Milk articulate his thoughts on the matter.