Happy New Year, dear visitors! Hope your holidays were relaxing and fun. 2010 is here and that means Paulzeye is ready to get busy again. Stay tuned for new movie reviews, my 2009 ‘top 10 films of the year’ list, and more interesting movie-related articles and essays.

Today was one of the most painful days in a long while. The day began with heartbreak when news outlets announced the death of the iconic blonde beauty Farrah Fawcett (who portrayed the dashing Jill Munroe on the hit television series Charlie’s Angels). Fawcett, who had been battling cancer for several years now, passed away at the age of 62 with long-time partner Ryan O’Neal (of “Love Story”) by her side.

Just hours later, more tragic news surfaced, news that stunned the world over. Michael Jackson, the self-proclaimed King of Pop, passed away suddenly at the age of 50 after suffering a cardiac arrest. According to his brother, Jermaine, doctors spent at least an hour trying to resuscitate the legendary singer without any success.

Two iconic legends have left us too soon and on the same day. People around the world will be mourning for a long time.  We will miss Michael Jackson, his music, his humanitarian qualities, and his signature moves, and Farrah Fawcett, with her beautiful smile and envious blonde hair. Today, the world feels a little more talentless. May they rest in peace.

‘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.