ktboundary

Just a note, before anyone continues to read. I've labeled this review as containing spoilers however, as soon as I describe what I found so offensive about this movie, it will immediately inform the reader critical story-ruining details of the film's plot. So FYI prior to reading, what follows is what I found so thoroughly offensive.

I am livid. That any filmmaker would consider a relevant feature in their storyline the destruction of an important artwork the Mona Lisa, quite possibly the most significant painting on Earth. Rarely has any movie angered me so completely.

Whatever petty quarrel or argument about finances the hollow characters in this film we're having amongst themselves, cannot compare to the historical significance of a piece of artwork like the Mona Lisa. Mona Lisa isn't just part of a story, the Mona Lisa is its own story. It is a key feature of History itself.

How dare the creators of this film consider the destruction of the Mona Lisa as a superficial afterthought of their mediocre film. And make no mistake, characterizing the film as "mediocre" is being more than generous.

Here's a novel idea, how about one of you network geniuses consult an actual Star Trek fan for their input prior to launching your product? Who is the target demographic? 55 Years of ST, has all the tone and pacing of someone on Adderall watching Good Morning America.

A bunch of actors whining about how awful their job was, what in the name of the Kobayashi Maru does this have anything to do with remembering what Star Trek meant to its fans? Exploration of space? Dedication to science? Progressive social commentary? I take no joy in being critical of yet another comically disappointing Star Trek series. Honestly, I'm appreciative of the effort, but all someone had to do is ask us for our perspective.

The movie's premise centers around a deep space crew confronted with an ethical issue of life or death, one of its crewmen must be compassionately euthanized for the survival of the remaining crew. A well-worn scenario which isn't new, borrowing from the similar life quandary of individuals stranded at sea in an overcrowded lifeboat who must unanimously decide which one of them gets thrown over the side so the rest may survive. Unfortunately, who it seems Stowaway decided to be euthanized was the film's science advisor or anyone who had some inkling of a technical background.

Good attention to special effects and believable CGI graphics, at some point though, it seems the actors, who did their best but obviously are not highly skilled trained astronauts, appeared to extemporaneously make things up as they went along. Any viewer even remotely familiar with the subject material lost his suspension of belief halfway through. It would be interesting at some point to listen the directors DVD commentary to understand what happened.

Star Trek Discovery first season review, note spoilers

"It would be logical for you to take into account my success rate during our seven years together, and execute my plan without further challenge before we're dragged into war!" "We have to!"

The solemn warnings of Michael Burnham in Star Trek Discovery's first episode, just prior to her physically assaulting her commanding officer unconscious. Advocating an unprovoked first-strike attack upon another ship, the entire season's 15 episode story arc, a protracted Klingon-Federation war, pivot around the effective delivery of these critical few lines. Her words are conveyed with all the earnestness and composure of a whining child complaining to her mother why she can't invite friends over for a pajama party.

Mutineer Burnham is instrumental in a devastating military conflict resulting in the Federation losing 75% of its fleet. The bold, treasonous act does nothing to establish her as a respected military leader destined for command. Neither, as the only human to attend the Vulcan Science Academy, a highly educated academic. But would seem better suited for the position of Star Bucks barista, only one who hasn't yet finished training. Any sciolist this arrogant, insubordinate or incompetent could not possibly be entrusted with the burdens or responsibilities of their own spaceship, they barely might be expected to get a coffee order right. Michael Burnham's actions in the role of Number One are wholly incredulous.

The majority of Starfleet's ships lay destroyed, hundreds of thousands of lives pointlessly extinguished resulting from Burnham's treasonous acts. However, concluding the season-long story arc Burnham experiences an epiphany, 'oopsie-daisy I was wrong' she opines reflecting back on the bloodbath. Given a mulligan and all is forgiven, her record is expunged and she is fully reinstated back into Starfleet.

After soul-searching and a heartfelt apology, among the carnage of destroyed vessels and myriad lives lost, Trek fans can now welcome the war criminal back into the federation fold. The bizarre narrative reads like a line from Monty Python's Jolly Good Felon sketch (S03E01), 'Yes it was a terrible thing to do, kill all those nice people and destroy so many of your wonderful spaceships. I'm very, very sorry and promise to never, ever let it happen again'. 'Three cheers for the accused! Here's your com-badge!' The writing here is laughable. Its premise, insulting. Martin-Green's selection as leading role, dumbfounding.

Martin-Green may be a competent perfomer. Unfortunately her limited acting range makes her the wrong choice for such a challenging role. Considering Burnham is presented as a champion of a gender or race empowering movement, and an entire season constructed around her ability to deliver a convincing performance, such inadequacies do a disservice to an important cause, herself and the viewer.

Emphasizing fantasy over reality, STD is riddled with ridiculous blunders and scientific errors. These aren't simply flagrant violations of Star Trek canon, they are D minus scientific gaffes at the grade school level. Ironically titled "Discovery", a spaceship which can literally go anywhere, has no exploratory mission. Absent any moral, philosophical or societal conundrums Trek often encountered in the voyage into the unknown, STD defaults to borrowing ideas from indie video gamers. And Discovery's outer saucer section spinning like a top, or when using the spore drive flipping like a coin, is just stupid. "Star Trek is really about a quest for knowledge and to expand the human mind and growing and evolving by interacting with other intelligent life forms." -Eugene Roddenberry son of Gene Roddenberry and Majel Barrett

The first season dramatically departs continuity of any previous Star Trek. Dark, gritty, explicit, STD attempts to emulate Westworld or Game of Thrones with spaceships and ray guns. Gone are the moments of levity, camaraderie or an amicable crew laboring in harmony to achieve some common goal. Its focus instead is on one person, Burnham, around whom an entire season of hollow character development and thin, dreary storyline unfolds. STD endeavors to offer high drama and gripping realism contrasted by moments of stark, realistic violence. Falling short, the end result is a parade of tiresome camera tricks and dimly-lit monotony punctuated by gratuitous cruelty tossed in for an 'edgy' atmosphere.

In addition to an entire season emphasizing the brutalities of war there are examples of profanity, nudity, rape, torture, murder and cannibalism. A Starfleet admiral who threatens planetary mass-genocide, an ethically challenged Federation which rewards its captains for murdering their entire crew, and employing slave labor working prisoners to their death. For some reason it becomes necessary to reveal Klingons are accoutred by dual phalluses. Hints of season two, implied incest and a severed child's head, along with a mattoid Spock deteriorating into a murderous psychotic, the product of a crippling "religious" experience.

What also seems unfortunate is that STD takes the opportunity to accentuate its notion of identity politics. Superficial characters reduced to the tokenism of their gender, ethnicity or sexual preference. The genuine Trek fan couldn't care less if a character were male, female, white, black, gay, transgender, androgynous, or even non-human. Fans want a Star Trek which remains faithful to its core principles, ideals which contributed it to becoming one of most treasured TV and movie dynasties in entertainment history. Diversity and egalitarianism aren't highlighted because it's nothing out of the ordinary. Gender, ethnicity or what someone may do with their pants off needn't become center stage of any Star Trek show. Any thinking trek fan ought to be insulted by such simplistic symbolism. "I am the biggest trekkie on the planet." "As a matter of fact this is the only show Coretta and I will allow our little children to watch, " -Martin Luther King Jr.

Similarly, as in the conditions of poverty, disease or greed, canonical Star Trek had long ago relegated to the waste bin of human failures the weaknesses of bigotry and discrimination. It should go without saying, the traditional Star Trek fan is the last person anyone need lecture to about tolerance or inclusiveness.

Star Trek is more than just a TV show. It is an icon, an endearing phenomenon for tens of millions. A fictional universe, but one in which Star Trek philosophy, nomenclature or even recognizable hand gestures have found their way into everyday society. A world envisioned which is no longer blighted by hunger, poverty, intolerance or greed. A future which has even done away with trivial concerns of money. Compelled ever-forward by its optimistic outlook, man's bold venture into the unknown is also emblematic of a journey inward. Exploring the unknown challenges humanity to an appreciation of his abilities and limitations. Meeting sentient species or exploring new worlds advances man outside his existing paradigm. Star Trek is just as much an internal self-examination of who we are as it is the journey into the "final frontier".

Woven deeply into society's fabric, frequently inspiring the career paths of its viewers, the ideology of Star Trek embodies the hopes and dreams of humanity's future. Of course this is a world where bad things can still happen, but this is also a future in which man's ingenuity, perseverance, courage and innate sense of decency routinely overcomes its obstacles. "Star Trek speaks to some basic human needs that there is a tomorrow, that the human race is improving," Gene Roddenberry (The Great Bird of the Galaxy), Star Trek creator

Star Trek Discovery puts an end to this optimistic perspective, offering instead man-buns and Twilight vampire teen drama in space. A regrettably dark future inhabited by superficial, craven, unlikable characters engaged in activities no one cares about.

STD fails its core mission to make a credible Star Trek. A show which had come to represent the best of mankind now resides behind a paywall and charges toll for access. There's more to the Star Trek formula than emphasizing gays and minorities then tossing in a Gorn skeleton and a few tribbles. Star Trek means much more than this. However STD isn't merely a bad rendition of Star Trek, it isn't just bad science fiction, its bad story telling altogether. A situation not likely to be resolved by the Klingons "getting their hair back".

The greatest challenge for any new Star Trek Discovery series isn't simply forsaking canon, or unnecessary social commentary, but the show's abandonment of mankind's hope for tomorrow. "City on the Edge of Forever" is often regarded among the finest examples of storytelling in the Star Trek universe. The iconic story finds our intrepid Enterprise heroes trapped in an incompatible "alternate timeline". The lesson learned in this, Star Trek's preeminent episode, sometimes when you love something so much to save it requires great sacrifice.

Thanks to STD a nonsensical, fractured world is where trek fans now find themselves. With its ridiculous premise and multitude canon violations it's entirely possible Star Trek may now be broken beyond repair. To save the proposition of Star Trek's optimism for tomorrow, to safeguard a vestige of the hopeful future it once held, it may become necessary end the series altogether, to reclaim the memory of what Star Trek once was, and preserve what hope for tomorrow remains. Spock: "Jim, in order to set things straight again, Star Trek Discovery must die." Kirk: "Let's Get the Hell Out Of Here".

Possibly a cry for help, the film is essentially a window into a sick mind. In addition to all of that, is boring. Whomever made this should be embarrassed for themselves. Shooting a prostitute in the face with a shotgun immediately after performing oral services? That's your idea of entertainment? Tells me all I need to know about the depravity and limited artistic ability of its makers.

Not only did I not make it through the entire film. Lasted maybe 10 - 20 minutes. This abomination deserves to be blotted from memory and wiped from the face of the earth. If you made this film, or remotely enjoyed it, consider that you may be in need of psychological help.

There's a scene in Ghost Rider where Nicolas Cage/Johnny Blaze transmogrifies from sulking-misunderstood leading man into the sulking-misunderstood spawn of Satan. He shrieks in abject horror, disbelief and sulking-misunderstood terror as his flaming skull erupts through his sulking-misunderstood flesh. This scene feels like it goes on and on for hours, this is how I felt throughout the entire film.

As someone who lives vicariously through film, I go out of my way to find the goodness in all movies. Often going to ridiculous extremes to highlight or salvage even the smallest, minuscule bit of minutia to resurrect a disastrous cinematic experience before the fallen countenance of my movie compadres. However calling Ghost Rider a "cookie-cutter" film insults the memory of all drive-in "B-movie" cookie-cutter films that have ever been made everywhere, those in the past and even those that haven't been made yet. Virtually every line in every scene of every frame, with the exception of a flaming skeleton on a motorcycle, has already been rehashed, recycled then regurgitated ad nauseum. Predictable lines of dialog seemingly written by challenged parrots still reverberate through my cerebral cortex like Ichabod Crane as he terrorized villagers in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" causing them to combat those other shocked and stunned portions of my brain that still refuses to accept that I had actually sat through this flaming, fingernails-on-the-chalkboard nightmare. If Ghost Rider were hamburger it would be made from out of expiration lips, utters and eyeballs.

I can just imagine the focus group slash marketing ad-men sitting in their executive board room: Jenkins. What do the kids think is hip, cool and happening these days? Well, motorcycles sir. Motorcycles eh? Good. Yes, I like it. Motorcycles, what else have you got? Well sir skeletons. Skeletons have always been ah, "hip" sir. Skeletons, yes, yes... Hum, I like it. So far so good Jenkins. I like what I'm hearing. Go on. Well sir we could put a skeleton on a motorcycle, its never been done before. Yes, yes... A skeleton *on* a motorcycle, yes, brilliant. Brilliant! Well done here Jenkins. One more thing sir. What is it Jenkins, "run it up the flag pole" as they say. Well our surveys suggest the skeleton needs to be engulfed in flames. WELL DONE! Jenkins. Engulfed in flames, by god you have outdone yourself. Your too kind sir. No, no... I knew hiring my wife's nephew and giving him that corner office was going to pay off, give yourself a bonus. Thank you sir, right away. Right after I'm done stapling and collating all of those copies you asked me to make earlier.

As if this weren't enough, our sulking-misunderstood hero repeats the same, unusual, "grab the girl, spin her around, and then kiss her while she is still disoriented and unable to run away" maneuver that he's done before. Thus repeating the same, clumsy, awkward, uncomfortable and painful to watch kissing scene from "National Treasure" where he did the same thing. This pre-adolescent attempt at sexuality appears to be becoming Cage's unusual calling card ala Arnold Schwarzenegger's "I'll Be Back" phrase that Arnold keeps repeating from film to film. What is Cage trying to say to his audience? That he is challenged by kissing women?

As you are now no doubt aware, I detest this movie with every fiber of my being. It is simply not enough for me to say I hate it. It is simply not possible for me to have more contempt, my contempt level is at "11". This is not film, it is the opposite of film, it is anti-film. It is a black hole of cinematic nothingness into which everything good and decent is sucked in and crushed to bejesus and back. Its as if the film-makers were purposely endeavoring to sicken and irritate my bowels with salmonella disguised as celluloid. Forget water-boarding, forget sleep-deprivation, and forget playing Barny's "I Love You" or Metallica at top volume. Ghost Rider is the only thing Donald Rumsfeld needs to violate the Geneva Convention and be convected of crimes against humanity. For gods sake, someone get the fire extinguisher.

A well crafted film and an honorable adaptation of the book. Thoroughly enjoyable. Fans of Dan Brown will not be disappointed. I was captivated by the fast moving pace of the film and found it neither boring or long as some of the cynical detractors are now claiming. Though not a flawless creation, it certainly deserves more than the half-star it was given by many of the so-called "impartial" critics. This undeserved low score reveals the hidden agenda underlying their treatment of a controversial subject matter.

The true nature of Jesus is perhaps simultaneously the films greatest asset and its greatest liability. The explosive nature of the material both compels the viewers attention and at the same time demands a level of reverence out of respect for the faithful. Any other subject would have received a different treatment, possibly conceding a greater latitude in its artistic expression. There are few laugh lines for instance as one might expect in dealing with a subject this serious. The film and book do take dramatic license with many facts as many have already pointed out. But credit must be given to the Da Vinci Code, and books like Holy Blood Holy Grail, for illuminating the humanity of a historical Jesus and returning harmony and balance to the Christian world via the sacred feminine. Something Catholicism in particular is greatly lacking. At minimum Da Vinci is clearly trying to speak to us across the ages, a cursory examination of the apostle John/Mary from The Last Supper, and Mary from The Madonna of the Rocks reveals that they are one and same person, even wearing similar hair style and clothing.

I'm mystified by the casting of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, though clearly an accomplished, versatile actor he does not convey the distinction of a Harvard academic. Perhaps my opinion will change after repeated viewings as Hanks does provide an acceptable performance. His portrayal of Langdon does seem to deliver the inner turmoil of dealing with such a sensitive topic. I imagined Silas much less photogenic than the lanky Paul Bettany, this characterization should have been more of a tortured, hulking brooding type. Bettany executes his role well but seems more like a figure from the pages of GQ rather than the haunted, freakish Silas of the book.

The charming Audrey Tautou is exemplary in her role. She has been a favorite since 'Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain' and I could imagine no other actress in that role, with the possible exception of Anna Friel who might have conveyed a more fiery independent character. There doesn't appear to be any chemistry or magic between Tautou and Hanks. They deliver their lines well and it's difficult to find any sort of technical complaint, but one gets the impression they have little in common, you might never find them sharing a coffee together for instance. Jean Reno, Ian McKellen and Alfred Molina are perfectly cast in their roles and deliver exceptional performances.

In all this is a highly successful film bringing much of the book to life, featuring wonderful, scenic photography of France, England, Scotland, and portrayals of the holy land, and dramatic flash-back scenes illustrating the historical significance of those locations. Concerning Christianity, the genie is now out of the bottle and many of the faithful are now in full disaster recovery mode. The irony is that, to my knowledge, there are no theological provisions against a married Jesus, it certainly does not change his message. There is no turning back however as we, armed with our new knowledge of the past, will continue to "seek the truth".