kirkintha26

Star Trek has been deconstructed and reconstructed into a new future that allows - finally - the franchise to boldly go where it has not been before.

For the un-trekkers: This movie is a mixture of stunning cinematography and fun "don't take me so seriously" plot that reboots the previous tired and dated musings of a franchise trapped in it's own zeitgeist. I'll get in trouble for saying this, but it's everything that the prequels to Star Wars wished it could have been. It's fresh, It's fun, It's visually spectacular, and a must see for anyone who likes action and adventure! If you like Star Trek, Star Wars, Star Gate, Starship Troopers, you are going to love this movie. It's just... cool! Way to go JJ!

For those fans who are already Trek (however you identify yourself): JJ Abrams has started a religious war. This movie is the Reformed Church of Star Trek - and I can see how many an Old School fan would see this as breaking too many rules.

I personally had a problem with some of the effects, especially the transporter (hated it) and I have no clue what they were intending for engineering, but it's not the engineering I know.

I have problems with plot holes - saw a ton of them, but hey I am a Star Trek Fan and dissect everything to the nth degree.

My suggestion for all fans Trek: go into this with an open mind and you will not be disappointed. For the first time in 10, no 15 years I have seen something special with the name Star Trek attached to it.

Watch this movie - it's amazing!

I can see how many Bond fans want to see the same formulaic Bond (for the last half century almost), but personally I was done with it all a long time ago, until Daniel Craig became Bond, and they re-vamped the franchise.

I'm glad they took out the fluff. The whole 10 min intro to seeing M and Moneypenny for 10 minutes to seeing Q for 10 minutes, add 15 minutes of sex scenes, and 15 minutes of bad guys, 20 minutes of action and then 30 minutes of actual plot and you have the formula.

This does it more subtly and IMHO more deftly. I enjoyed the cinematography immensely, some of the action shots are just spectacular.

This is what I think people are missing.

The Gadgets: I do miss Q, but did you see all the cool gadgets? They are every where. From cell phones to touch plasma screens, these gadgets are now a reality. I'm glad they don't have gadgets just to push the plot along. In our world of high technology, the only place to go is to sci-fi gadgetry and I hope they never do that.

No quips: Good. I was tired of quipping after "Live or let die" came out.

No Moneypenny. Hey, how do we know that they don't have something in store for us with that? Remember this is a reboot.

A colder Bond - GOOD! I was tired of Bond being the pompously classy booze hound who screws every woman he comes into contact with. Movies have made fun of the "Bond saves the day" routine, hello Austin Powers. I think they have taken away the black and white cold war propaganda and moved it into the grayer realm of globalization.

Re: the directing and plot. My only problem is this really did feel like a sequel, and that it could not a stand on its own. Without the context of Casino Royale, this movie tends to be like other modern action flicks. However, with "Casino" to complement it, these are two really great movies to rebuild the character of James Bond into a 3 dimensional character, who can actually grow from more of "a blunt instrument" to the refined and experienced Bond we all know.

I definitely recommend this film, 8 out of 10 due to the fact that it was chopped up a little too much, and didn't quite give you enough characterization and answers to be satisfying. Other than that, it was really cool to watch! Can't wait for another one.

Oh, And lastly...

Thank god there was not an "Oh, James" in this movie. You can take that phrase and bury it in peat.

I really have a split decision on this movie. Sometimes I felt there was a lack of back story to help bring key plot devices home and sometimes the pacing was a little awkward and mis-timed. Sometimes, I wanted a little more from the camera angels, a little more flow to the scenes. The camera was very minimal in this movie and sometimes it takes away from the scene.

BUT! Mostly I think this is a mesmerizing tale of boy (Oskar) meets Nosferatu (Eli) and falls under the spell of it's vampiric charms.

What I liked about this movie is that it intentionally did not do the "trying to scare you" bit - you know, the quick cuts and the loud music that makes you jump out of your seat. That bores me to death anymore - I'm so desensitized to the Hollywood process of smash and gore, that I think it is why I respect the film making so much. If you want smash and gore, the "Saw" series is a better choice.

This movie is simply not an Ann Rice novel clone - this is not supposed to be Interview with the vampire 2, or Blade 4, or Underworld 4, or other films that toe the "par for the course" vampire movie of erotic sex and ultra-violence. I do like a good vamp flick, but I have been looking for something that just does it differently in the vampire genre: and this movie is it.

This movie is incredibly internal - and since I saw a sub-titled movie - I really can't comment on anything other than the plot. I think the acting is good, Oskar and Eli especially. But, I don't understand Swede, so I can't tell you if the acting worked.

What I can say about this movie is this: most vampire movies have to fall back on the T&A factor (beautiful men and women covered in blood, screaming) to over compensate for a simplistic plot - and this movie takes a simplistic plot and adds many subtle layers for you to decipher. This movie is not for children and early teens, it is meant for adults who are tired of the same old vampire shtick.

Other than Tim Burton's Original batman (Which I still personally love) - this movie replaces every other Batman movie (and really anything batman) out there. Period. It feels like a phoenix rising out of the ashes.

I am rarely left completely satisfied by watching a comic book movie, but this movie left me wanting to go back and watch it again today. I may even do that.

It breaks almost every stereotypical plot line, and even breaks new ground on some things. With an exceptional ensemble cast, this movie simply and masterfully delivers something you really never get in comic book movies: 3 dimensional plot and characters.

I can't say enough good things about this movie, this will be a classic and in my opinion, is one of the few sequels that outshines the original.

Go see it!

Nay sayers of "Cloverfield" will point to the inevitable: it is herky-jerky, kind of plot less, and a tad two-dimensional with a dash of too many beautiful people.

Well, opinions are like... y'know.

Cloverfield takes a tired genre of disaster films and horror melange and brings it into a class that unfortunately has to be compared to "The Blair Witch Project" and a few other choice first person horror narratives. However, Cloverfield takes the "less is more" genre, from where "Blair Witch" left it off and truly brings it to another level. It follows with an unflinching lens (a handicam none-the-less) a group of friends, lovers and relatives in a seemingly mundane day that turns into a classic life and death struggle, and the heroic efforts of the cast as the mysterious events unfold - something (a very big something) is attacking NYC.

Cloverfield is the "B" film spirit with an "A" cast/crew, and I think that's the point. It takes the cheesy "Godzilla vs. insert whatever here" and completely re-invents the way that it is portrayed. I did find the plot a little scattered, other than the story of a group of people on a quixotic quest - but I think that the "crazy" viewpoint of the videotape (it's from the viewpoint of someone watching a videotape, not just holding the camera) and people making decisions under pressure is what captivated me the most. That and the fact that you are being given just enough: in the character development, the one camera viewpoint, the special effects, the reveals - that I really wanted to "experience" more and more. And how many movies can you say that about? For most of the action, I felt like I was as close as I needed to be. I liked being part of it, but detached at the same time. Cloverfield is thrilling, and I don't get that from many movies anymore.

This is one of those films that challenges you. It leads you along and spoon feeds you, but only because revealing everything at once would have made this a tired story line of city officials spouting BS melodramatic lines about saving the city and the token child and dog routine, everyone running away as the hero saves the day. That's just old.

There are no easy scenes here, not a lot of explanation, no scoring (save for a soundtrack of organic sounds), there are no Hollywood super stars mucking it all up and I know it's not real life - but it feels as authentic as any sci-fi/horror/action movie is going to get. I think the obvious correlations to terrorism etc are contemporary for our time, and to be honest I am good with that: Real and imagined Monsters loom in the deep and can attack at any time.

Cloverfield is not for streamlined movie goers - this is for people who like to feel like they can suspend their disbelief and put themselves into the other persons shoes. Somehow this movie struck a chord with me that's been missing for sometime. It's a shame that a movie like this can come along only every so often. If it did, it would feel like an overused gimmick. Thankfully it runs just long enough to not overstay its welcome.

I am so glad this movie was not two and half hours to three hours long (although it was about 15 minutes/4 scenes short IMHO) - this is actually a great watch - albeit a little contrived at the end. Will Smith is one of the few actors who could have pulled off this type of action and drama without seeming too - Will Smith (or insert actor's name here) - at the time. I really enjoyed the camera shots and seamless CGI - most of the time it felt like hand held cameras and natural lighting - very cool. NYC is amazingly transformed into oblivion. Kudos. And in general, the affect on Smith's character of being under constant stress (both physically and mentally) is poignant.

I must admit though, that the story while well told, does not really have the legendary status that it could have had - or rather that the story never seemed to have a start or finish. For a character driven movie, one really needed a few of the characters to have more - scenes. I just saw some missed moments and revelations, hopefully there is a director's cut somewhere that maybe has a few extra scenes? All in all though, I loved this movie - it felt like faithful sci-fi thriller a la old school movies such as "The Thing" or any other 1950's 60's sci-fi.

Definitely check this movie out. Although I don't think it would happen - I would love to see a sequel to this. Maybe it should have been 3 hours long!

UPDATED 12/31/2008 - Well, I was right, there is an "alternate" version of this on the DVD, and I ask myself - why in the heck did they release the original? The alternate made more sense, brought the characters home - it was really good!

"Network" is a fantastic movie that illustrates just how the "mob" and the media can exploit even the best intentions for mutual profit.

Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is an on-air personality that, after finding he is not bankable anymore, snaps and starts to speak his own uncensored, and highly inflammable commentary about the hypocrisy of modern life.

In his mad-hatter routine, somehow he sparks his audience's interest, and in a twist of fame finds himself, the not bankable as prime market share for prime time television. And naturally, his bosses and those who stand to profit from his actions, use his fame to better their own cause.

Beale's rise to stardom is only one facet of this intricate story about how the mob influences media. Throughout "Network" we as the audience are constantly shown, to nausea, how ruthless popularity and trend mold what we see as consumers of entertainment. Most of the main characters are in fact trapped in their roles - and powerless to the bottom line, which is that media relies on advertisement and ratings to generate revenue.

In fact, I believe that is what the point of "Network" is - this movie shows us, that "news" is entertainment, and how we as viewers (whichever demographic you are) are willing to suspend all common sense, class, independence, honor, integrity for a few moments of triumph or more pragmatically, how we relish tragedy.

"Network" is too heavy for most people - it is meant for people who do not like TV, who think that product placement is ridiculous, and in general do not like to think of themselves as a "market". If you need your reality spoon fed to you, this movie is not for you.

However, if you have had enough, and wish to feel for a moment like you are an empowered free thinker, i would humbly suggest that this movie is for you.

"Transformers" is everything I expected it to be: funny, silly, technically spectacular and... juvenile.

If you expect this movie to be anything other than a hot-rodded Saturday morning cartoon, then this movie is not for you. Mostly Transformers is loosely tied, effortlessly predictable, stereotypical and has no real sense of a story line. The characters and actors merely ride along with us in our chairs as the action roars by.

The whole point of Transformers though is to be a great Saturday morning cartoon, and Michael Bay has the flare to do it well. I am really glad I saw this movie, you should absolutely watch it if you are a fan. If you are looking for depth though, stay away.

While I think that The Departed is a tour-de-force of brilliant acting and direction, this movie is merely a good adaptation of another movie from Hong Kong, Mou gaan dou (2002).

It's a hard sell sometimes, I think that the cat-and-mouse does not quite pan out in many scenes, and I believe that there are many faults in the overall script. Without trying to give anything away, many of the relationships and resolutions become infuriating towards the end. As soon as the final act starts, many clichés happen that unfortunately hurt the movie.

I was almost bored at the end, and unfortunately Matt Damon overshadows much of this film with quite possibly the worst re-hash of his Bostonian accent possible. I felt like I was in Goodwill Hunting II - hunting season.

Mark Walhberg is completely underused and had some of the most genuine acting.

DiCaprio is excellent, although a bit ham-handed at times.

Jack Nicohlson was made for this movie - he really embodies everything mafia and more. Props to Jack - he could have entertained me with doing a load of laundry.

All in all The Departed is a great gangster movie - a little confusing, but being long on acting and direction and cinematography makes up for being a tad short in clarity and content.

This is a must see for anyone who really appreciates twists and turns and a lot of violence and depravity.