REVIEW: HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE

(Here's my original opening to this review, which is no longer accurate - figured I'd include it for the sake of posterity and disclosure. Also, the intent was pure. Some day I will post a review within hours of seeing something new. Someday...)

This is an impromptu review, composed on the fly not an hour after I've seen the movie. That being the case, it will likely be unbalanced, hastily composed and given to frequent derailments of my always steady train of thought. Really, it'll be like every other review I've ever posted here, except minus the two-week lag between release and review.

This is easily my favorite of the Potter films thus far. While it doesn't hit the levels of perfection that Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner of Azkaban did, it is by far the most engaging and human of the series. It also boasts a career best performances from Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and in particular Dan Radcliffe, but more about them later.

First, let me praise the welcome return of Steve Kloves. Kloves was responsible for the intelligent and efficient scripts for the first four films; his instinct for theme and character (teens especially) was always a boon to the films, never more apparent then when it was absent from the rushed and muddled fifth installment. Equally important was Kloves' skill at adaptation; he always knew what to keep, what to abridge and what to cut, and I'd say that, barring one exception, he was always right.

Still, this Potter is more assured in it's storytelling than last time. The scenes play out longer (with more character packed into each one) and that cumbersome montagey feel is gone. And again, Kloves can write terrific teens (better than Rowling does). Scenes of horny Hogwarts students eyeing each other up in the halls and nervous pre-sexual encounters populate this movie and make for several of its best moments. Among my favorites is Harry and Ron, while each laying in bed, discussing girls they like; it ends with Harry abruptly ending the conversation and switching off his light, though it's scripted and played just right to suggest (in a PG-appropriate manner, of course) that he'll be polishing his wand momentarily.

Y'know. Jerking off. Of course that's all played very discreetly so as not to offend the kiddies with "mature content." The film's actual on-screen maturity is displayed by Daniel Radcliffe, who more than exceeds expectations this go around; the dude is fantastic in this movie. He isn't just the star because he's playing the title character, he's an honest to Gods movie star here, more than holding his own with sage actors Gambon, Smih, Rickman and Broadbent. Radcliffe has developed into a very, very talented young actor. He handles the drama with more gravity than in previous installments (his go-to affectation for conveying heavy emotions was usually to just get louder), but his comic abilities are what surprises the most. While Grint has previously been the series' funniest young actor, Radcliffe steps up his game in this installment. I was howling with laughter during a scene when Harry's high as a kite on a good luck potion. Seeing Harry Potter stoned (played beautifully by Radcliffe) in a PG movie was a real subversive delight. Kids growing up with these movies are going to discover so much more burried within in them when they get older.

Like its audience and protagonists, the Potter franchise is getting older. This movie defies audience expectations of a summer movie by ending quietly and slowly. What follows is a vague and minor (though what's blacked out is specific and major) spoiler, even for those familiar with the books. Yates and Kloves opted to excise Rowling's climactic battle scene from the film, instead allowing Dumbledore's death to be, as it should be, the climax of the film. I was stunned that there was no epic wizard fight in the halls of Hogwarts afterward (the largest cut from the book); after a brief chase and a fizzle of a reveal (to a somewhat abandoned plotline that really functions only as a subtitle), the movie winds down with what must be the longest and most satisfying denouement to any recent summer blockbuster. I applaud director and writer for trimming what wasn't necessary, even though what they trimmed would certainly have been a rousing, spectacular and crowd-pleasing action scene, in favor of character, tone and emotion. I'm sure the decision, which makes more sense in the context of the movie's original winter '08 release date, will cost them at the box office, but it was the right move.

Brief Thoughts on Random Bullshit

Here's a quickie, but reviews of MOON, THE HURT LOCKER and PUBLIC ENEMIES are in the works.

First of all, please don't see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Don't go despite bad reviews, even if only to satisfy your curiosity - trust me, you really aren't THAT curious. Don't give them your money. Hell, don't even download a bootleg of the thing - aside from the illegality of it, you'll be giving them your time. The thing has made over $300 million domestically so a second sequel is all but guaranteed. Please, please, please, don't encourage them.

Also, it appears as though Fox is pursuing replacements for voice-actors Katy Segal, John Dimaggio and Billy West for the forthcoming season of Futurama. This is a real heart breaker; my elation at news of the show's resurrection is all but totally dashed. Those three actors are irreplaceable to people who watched and loved the show (I came to it ashamedly quite late on DVD, but still love it dearly). This is lame.

The Emmy nominations are out, and again it seems the the people who award excellence in television don't seem to watch very much of it. Battlestar Galactica was again all but shut out, with nominations only for directing (Michael Rymer for the series finale "Daybreak, part 2," and quite deservedly) and for their pre-4.5 webisodes. Meanwhile, Mad Men and 30 Rock each snagged four writing nominations of the total five in their respective categories and, most offensively of all, Family Guy got a nod for best animated program. Seriously, Emmy's, you gotta spread the love around a little bit, but never, ever to Family Guy.

REVIEW: TRANSFORMERS - REVENGE OF THE FALLEN

I'm late getting this online (shocking, I know), so anyone interested has probably read at least one review of the new Michael Bay fighting robot explosion-fest, TRANSFORMERS 2: REVENGE OF THE RUNTIME. If you haven't yet, read any and all of the reviews linked at the bottom of this page - they're terrifically entertaining reads. And in the nature of full disclosure, I read those incredibly negative reviews before seeing the movie myself, something I try to avoid doing in most cases. I couldn't resist, though, and still somehow mustered the will to see the movie after reading how abjectly awful it is. Don't get me wrong, if Devin, Nick or Ebert say that a movie is inherently terrible and without any redeeming qualities (which they all do), I take them at their word; when it comes to avoiding shitty movies, they've never led me astray.

But goddamn, do I love me some big robots.

Five minutes into the new TRANSFORMERS (after an opening so retardedly audacious - including Decepticons at the Dawn of Man), after a terrific robot fight that leveled Shanghai, I started to wonder if maybe, just maybe, the pros and I weren't going to see eye to eye on this one. The movie, while just as dumb as the previous installment, was not the disaster I'd been told to expect. The action was bright, colorful and, most unlikely of all in a Michael Bay movie, coherent. Also, kickass. When engaging a hidden Decepticon force in the soon-to-be-craterish city, Optimus Prime drives out the back of an Air Force C-130, transforms in midair (all in one, continuous, 100% ILM shot, of course), deploys four parachutes, touches down on the freeway and, three bounds later, transforms back into a truck. Mindless, I know, but it's the kind of giddy, little boy playing with action figures fun you want when watching this kind of movie. I leaned over to my friend and commented that, so far, the movie was pretty enjoyable, with which he agreed.

ONE MINUTE LATER.
ME: What just happened?
FRIEND: Oh my god, I'm so bored.

And that's TRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN, condensed for your reading pleasure. There's a few minutes of robot ass-kicking scattered throughout two-and-a-half hours of horrible. Let me be clear: there is NOTHING to enjoy in this movie that doesn't involve 40-foot robots punching each other in the face. The only moments in the movie that I didn't hate featured robot fights, though I by no means am saying that there weren't robot fights that I didn't hate, which there were (and I did). The things that I hated most about the movie were the robots, which there is no shortage of. The Autobots and the Decepticons filled out their ranks since the last movie, though there is no explanation where any of these new bots came from. On the "good" side we have Shiny Silver Sports Car Robot (if this character was given a name, I didn't catch it - in my defense, it also wasn't ever given a line of dialog or anything to do onscreen except drive around looking mighty slick) and the Crotch Rocket Sisters (a trio of fast motorcycles who project holographic girl-riders when in bike form, and who roller-fucking-skate in robot form). Adding to the mounting inanity is Jetfire, the ancient SR-71 Blackbird who, to better depict his age, walks with a cane (that comes from within when he transforms) and has a shiny metal beard. And of course there are already-infamous Twins, two smaller robots who walk, talk and look like the worst black man stereotypes ever; their presence in this movie is hateful, stupid and ugly, and all involved in their creation should be ashamed of themselves.

But Mudflaps and Skids, as they're called, aren't the only offensive content vomited on the screen over the movie's unbearably long running time. American soldiers are killed off by the dozens throughout - early in the film we see their bodies being unloaded at a stateside airbase, coffins draped with American flags. This is a scene in a movie about alien robots based on an 80s toyline. It's bad enough this brainrot movie kills off U.S. troops just to up the body count, but to try (and fail) to milk an emotional moment off the solemn imagery of their deaths is beyond insulting. In addition to that public offense, the movie peppers what is (or should be) essentially a children's action movie with profanity and tasteless "humor." Little children sat in theaters this weekend watching dogs and dog-sized robots hump Megan Fox's leg. They saw at least one robot farting gag, yet another robot pissing on people gag, Sam's mom get high on pot-brownies, and John Tuturro's barely-concealed nutsack. There's nothing, absolutely nothing funny in TRANSFORMERS: ROTF, and every attempt at humor is at best dead air (but in most cases crude and tasteless).

Every human element in this movie is a complete and utter waste of time. There is not a single character in the entire movie, only human-like props that scream each other's names loudly and repeatedly. Shia Lebouf, whose sharp comic instincts were one of the first movie's few saving graces, is undeniably terrible here. Megan Fox, who suggested last time that she might be more than just a pretty everything, is strictly a piece of ass this go 'round. Her character is a pin-up in the middle of a $200 million action flick and nothing more. I almost feel bad for her. Bay & Co. follow the PIRATES 2 model, wherein any and every memorable (or not) supporting character from the first installment (dogs included) must return. Everybody's back: Sam's parents (who killed last time but, sadly, are given dreck to run with this go), Tuturro's disgraced Sector 7 agent (a needless and 100% unfunny John Tuturro thong gag hurt my soul), and even Mojo the chiuaua (who is featured two of the movie's three dog-humping-leg jokes. Seriously) all return, none of whom add anything of value to the proceedings. Let's not forget Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson's Military Dudes (I saw the movie last night and I can't remember a single character's name, or for that matter even a rudimentary outline of the plot), who function solely as... nothing. They're barely in the movie. In fact everyone feels like they're barely in the film at all. There isn't a character in the movie that I didn't hope would die by the end, and those that did ALL came back to life before the movie (finally) stopped. This is such a vacuum of talent and entertainment featuring nothing, barring a few brief robot fights and the aforementioned offensive content, even remotely noteworthy or memorable.

One thing to keep in mind while watching this movie (which you should under no circumstances do. Please, don't give them your money, your time or your brainpower) is that its principle architects HATE YOU. Michael Bay and screenwriters Orci and Kurtzman think you are of limited intelligence and are so eager to kill two hours of your tedious life that you'll endure hours of noisy, mindless drivel. They think you won't notice glaring continuity errors, like when characters on one continent in one scene are inexplicably on another in the next, or that an amphibious invasion force manages to cross the entirety of Africa in the space of minutes. Certainly they think you're a racist cretin like them, since they think you'll find it funny that black dudes can't read, even when they're robots. They assume you're a moron for laughing at shit like The Twins, Sam's intensely annoying college roommate (who annoys every character he encounters - perhaps this should have been a warning, screenwriters) and a lech for wanting nothing more from Megan Fox than to do cheesecake poses for 2.5 hours (seriously, if I wanted porn, I know where to look). They think you don't have even the most rudimentary grip on geography, going so far as to place the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in the middle of the goddamn desert and setting a journey from Egypt to Jordan (and then back) over the course of a few hours. Really, though, they think you're a mouth-breathing, bib-drooling, Maxim-reading product of hastily-unplanned mutant incest for enjoying the two hours of banal filler that populates the non-robot fighting portions of the movie.

This is a terrible, terrible, terrible movie. People that tell me they enjoyed it are no longer people I can have conversations with. This is an objectively bad movie - no one can argue otherwise. There is no plot, there are no characters, there is nothing dramatic, comedic or otherwise entertaining about anything that occurs in the film. There are a few enjoyable (but unoriginal and unexciting) robot fight scenes that were the only things I looked forward to during its punishingly-long duration. I hated, hate now and will forever continue to hate this movie until something even worse is released (and even then, I'll only hate it slightly less). This is an insult to audiences and a black mark on Hollywood.

I'm not typically inclined to make hyperbolic "best/worst" statements (and even less inclined to take seriously those who do make them), but TRANSFORMERS: ROTF is easily the worst movie I've seen this year, and among the worst I've ever seen. I can't believe I'm this offended by a damn robot movie. Avoid it at all costs.

ROGER EBERT'S REVIEW


DEVIN FARACI'S REVIEW

NICK NUNZIATA'S SEMI-REVIEW

DISCUSSION: GREATEST ACTION MOVIE

My complete and total disinterest in seeing McG's TERMINATOR: SALVATION didn't prevent me from getting jazzed enough by the trailers and posters to go back and revisit the Cameron films. I have no unrealistic love for ol' Jimbo or his works; the guy is a good storyteller, spectacular craftsman and mediocre writer (dialog - hard to argue with his handle on structure*). That said, the dude has a pretty well 100% success ratio, a statistical impossibility in Hollywood (topic for another discussion: filmmakers without a bad movie to their credit. Brad Bird certainly tops the list, having made three perfect films).

Cameron's TERMINATOR 2: JUDGEMENT DAY has got to be one of, if not the very best action spectacle of all time. Before you lose your shit and start throwing titles at me, read that sentence again: greatest action spectacle. It isn't the best action movie of all time, as that distinction easily goes to RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, which is damned flawless. No, T2 doesn't quite hit reach perfection the way Spielberg did so effortlessly with RAIDERS, but it's damn close. Where T2 exceeds RAIDERS is in the action - Cameron crafted the perfect thrill machine actioner, one that set a standard that's been mimicked, aped and shamelessly copied for almost 20 years, but never with the same skill.

The action in T2 is just spectacular. Think about the number of great action sequences in that movie. The opening future war battle. The naked Schwarzzenager bar fight. The shoot-out at the mall. The truck/dirt bike/harley chase on the spillway. The elevator fight/escape from Pescadero mental institution. The Cyberdyne systems break-in, the subsequent assault on the cops with the minigun, and then that last car chase between the SWAT van & helicopter, then the pickup and the semi. The steel works finale. EVERY sequence is different, every one is thrilling, every one was groundbreaking for its time, everyone still holds up today (I say that having re-watched the movie not an hour ago), and every single one is perfect. Cameron stumbles with the schmaltzy writing and the heavy-handed voice over, but as an action director I think he's unmatched.

Thoughts? Is there a grand action spectacle that I've overlooked in my praise of T2? Is there an action director you think tops Jim "I only shoot in underwater 3D" Cameron? Am I totally wrong about T2? Comment away, interwebs.

*Let's not get semantic and bring up the overlong special editions of ALIENS, T2 or THE ABYSS - the theatrical cut is what counts.

REVIEW: OUTLANDER

There are some movies that get lauded with absurd amounts of praise wildly disproportionate to what they actually deserve (Little Miss Sunshine comes to mind, along with last year's The Dark Knight and Slumdog Millionare - which is itself rising on my own personal hype-backlash list). My issue with these movies (or more accurately those that hyperbolically over-praise them) is that they deprive other, often better, tragically underseen films of the love and accolade warranted to them. Spread the love around, critics and filmgoers.

Outlander falls in the latter category: it's a film that to 90% of people would sound terrible, but to that movie loving, film savvy 10%, it's golden. The blurb on the DVD box describes it dully as "Beowulf meets Predator." If I were to offer a polish on the language, it would read: "The 13th Warrior meets Starman, except AWESOME." Intrigued but mystified? Outlander tells the epic story of Kainin, an alien soldier on his way home when his ship crash lands on Earth circa the 8th century A.D. In the crash, a monstrous alien dragon-wolf-monster-thing called a Moorwen is freed from the ship and unleashed upon the unsuspecting fur-wearing populous of Norway and only Kainin can stop it - that's right, kids, an alien helps the Vikings fight a bitchin' looking monster. If this appeals to you, you need to watch this movie. Yesterday. If it doesn't appeal to you, I offer my condolences for your never having experienced the joys of being a child with external genitalia, 'cause this movie was made for little boys (and little boys at heart).


Jim Caviezel (just occured to me his initials are JC - do you think that was a requirement for Mel? Would he have cast another actor instead? Possibly John Cho, John Cleese or John Carpenter?) plays Kainin and alternates his performance between stoic badass and tortured hero - nothing new here, but he does an admirable job. Kainin's interactions with the local Viking tribe proves to be the center of the movie and while far from original (the script borrows heavily from any monster-in-the-dark-that-we-must-outsmart-and-destroy movie -Alien, Predator, 13th Warrior, etc and flat out steals from Beowulf - both the text and the Zemeckis movie*), the cast elevates trite material to at least fairly enjoyable level. There's an altogether ridiculous scene featuring Kainin and Wulfric (Jack Huston) competing in the mead hall game "shields" has to the two running across upheld battle shields in a circle, performing various feats of balance and agility while the drunken crowd cheers; it shouldn't work, but miraculously does. It also might be the best scene in the whole movie, and that includes several gorey Moorwen attacks.

There really isn't an original idea in the whole movie, but the cavalcade of cliches are executed with enough conviction, style and the occasional, very knowing tongue-in-cheek to sell it. In fact, Outlander is pretty damned entertaining despite and in spite of itself. The action is well-shot and varied - there's nothing repetitive from set piece to set piece - and hits all the beats you want in this kind of movie. There's a few sword fights, a ton of scares and some genuinely fun, original violence. But never does the movie tread into overkill territory like Zemeckis did. Each action scene is, by contemporary standards, quite brief. Sword fights go on just as long as they need to and never longer, as do the monster attacks scenes - never did Outlander fatigue me the way most recent action pictures have. There's a familiar low-budget efficiency to the movie that I admired a lot, something lost now that most big Hollywood productions are actually B-movies with $200 million budgets. Outlander certainly looks cheaper than its contemporaries, but it plays cheaper, too, and that's a good thing.




*There are characters named Rothgar and Boromir - seriously? Also, furthering the Beowulf theft, the Moorwen has enough time to squirt out a baby Moorwen, which naturally bites it to better enrage the already vicious parent - Grendel's mother anyone?

Hey there, internets. Here it is, my first honest to gods review in, well... it has been a while. But let's move on.

STAR TREK was not the unmitigated disaster that its trailers predicted.

There was a lot of enthusiastic praise for the movie being bandied around the webs this weekend – it has an astonishing 96% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes – but I gotta wonder if these folks saw the same movie I did. Don't get me wrong, Star Trek ain't bad, but I'm hesitant to praise or even recommend it. As a summer action movie, it gets the job done: it's a noisy, brightly colored series of set pieces and space battles with an enjoyable cast and little expectations of its audience. It's also relentlessly stupid.

I know, it's hard to see that as anything other than a negative review, but it is. This isn't a bold new direction on the franchise, it's Kingdom of the Crystal Skull with spaceships. JJ's new Trek looks and sounds like the original, but only briefly and rarely touches the feel of the original.

Like with last year's Old Man Indy, I'm overall fairly apathetic about 2009's Star Trek. As a child raised on Trek in the 80s (namely The Next Generation and the Kirk-era movies), that I had no real emotional reaction to the reboot/relaunch is either JJ & co's greatest success or failure (I'm sure their $70+ million haul this weekend ranks slightly higher on their list of accomplishments than any accolade I could offer, but fuck 'em). New Trek didn't filled me with giddy, nostalgic geek joy, nor did it enrage my fiercest nerd sensibilities. It was there, and from time to time it was enjoyable, though never engaging.

The whole premise of the movie irks me in its artificiality. If you hadn't heard, this isn't a straight re-make ala Batman Begins or Casino Royale. The entire narrative is structured around relaunching the franchise with a new cast without rewriting the last 40 years of Trek cannon. Honestly, for as much as I dislike the rationale behind the story, I have to admire it. The folks behind this new one (Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman, or Paramount) built their movie around a needless and silly time-travel gimmick as to avoid offending the die hard Trekkies who kept the franchise on life support for the last ten years. And while my jaded heart is genuinely warmed by the gesture, it sure as shit doesn't make for a compelling story. Well, it could have – but it didn't. In preserving the franchise's legacy, the makers of this Trek have failed to make an actual movie. This film is all convoluted and empty set-up for a new franchise and not a movie that stands on its own merits. I would much rather have seen a straight-up reboot than this apologetic and uninteresting mess.*

In the least spoilery language possible, the basic premise of the movie is thus: Nero (Eric Bana), a tattooed and cantankerous Romulan, travels back through time to fuck shit up (which he does). In doing so, he alters history and creates a timeline separate from the one starring Shatner, Nimoy and the rest. Hence, the franchise is born anew and the old-canon adventures are protected (but are still fair game for the remaking). But these exhaustive attempts to be excruciatingly faithful to the source material by not doing all the things a typical reboot does fall apart when they do all the things a typical reboot does. I know it's nitpicky, but it seems silly to insist on tying this obvious (and necessary) reboot to the old canon while still being a reboot in every way. The technology, ships, uniforms and locations have all been updated, as has the cast, but we're still meant to assume that Chris Pine is the same Kirk that Shatner was. I realize this requires a fairly meager suspension of disbelief from the audience, but that inconsistency underlines how needless the rebootquel setup is. Audiences like reboots an inexplicably love origin stories – why not give them just that and scrap the religious devotion to what's come before?

There's a lot that does work, though, especially the cast. Most of them, at least. Chris Pine (who I've only seen in the especially mediocre Bottle Shock, in which he was especially mediocre) more than acquits himself as Jim Kirk. Even when he was given transparently expository dialog or a handful or lousy one-liners, he was good. He even threw a few welcome Shatnerisms into the mix. Karl and the Urban Rock Doom, who's been lousy in a string of post-Lord of the Rings flops, absolutely owns Bones McCoy. He's the only member of the new cast who attempts to mimic his predecessor, and he pulls it off quite well. Of the few laughs that the movie managed to elicit from me, half went to Urban. I just wish he did more than be a first-act sidekick for Kirk and then vanish for the rest of the movie. The other half of the laughs went to Simon Pegg's Scotty. The only part of the movie's initial casting to excite me was Pegg – anybody who's ever seen his work with Edgar Wright (or even last year's under appreciated How to Lose Friends & Alienate People) knows the guy is a terrific comic actor, but that's not the Pegg we get here. Instead, recall the Pegg from JJ's M:I3: funny and watchable in a completely throwaway character, Pegg elevates lousy material simply by virtue of being smarter than the script. His Scott is, alongside Urban's McCoy, one of this film's only real standouts, even when he's delivering shit double-entendre's about the Enterprise' “ample nacelles, if you know what I mean” (we do) or trading barbs with a muppet (seriously).

The one cast member I won't comment on is Zachary Quinto as Spock. He's either acceptably bland or astoundingly bad, I really can't decide. Regardless, his frequent smirking is unsettling. His Spock could flip out at any moment and choke a bitch, and that just ain't Spock-like.

The rest of the cast does what they can with the script (which gives them nothing to work with), but they're all sadly forgettable. Zoe Saldana Uhura, while sexy as hell, adds nothing to the movie but a great set of legs. I say that in defense of the actress, mind you; she's good in the movie as the confident 23rd century career woman, but a romantic entanglement with one of the main three (hint: it ain't Kirk) does not constitute a character arc, even a shitty one. John Cho's Sulu is even more one-note. The script succumbs to that age-old screenwriting cliche, which is that All Asian People Know Martial Arts. He has essentially two scenes in the movie, neither of which ask any more of Cho than to be Asian. Also, George Takei? Japanese. Sulu? Japanese. Cho? Yeah. And Anton Yeltzin's defining characteristic as Chekov is possessing an incomprehensible (and not at all convincing) Russian accent. Like Sulu and, to a lesser extent, Scott, Chekov is comic relief not because his character is inherently funny, but because funny (in a Paul Blart: Mall Cop way) things happen to him. They're the butt of the jokes.

It's that sense of humor that bugs me the most about the movie. The action is all very exciting, if never wholly original, and the cast for the most part works. But the humor aims too damn low to be actually funny. Instead of getting clever jokes and exchanges derived from character and circumstance, Orci and Kurtzman inundate us with cheap sight gags, easy jokes and some embarrassingly dumb “comic” beats, all of which come not from the characters but at their expense. Chekov's inability to give the computer recognizable voice commands is an unfunny rip on a gag in Star Trek IV, and it wasn' terribly amusing then, either. Sulu's failure to disengage the ship's parking break when disembarking spacedock is both asinine and worthless (except for providing an amateur plot convenience, but more on that later). Worst of all must be Kirk's “hilarious” allergic reaction to a shot Bones gives him, a gag borrowed from the seminal Will Smith comedy Hitch. Having seen only that film's trailer, I can only assume (rightly I'd wajor) that the gag is just as retarded in a romantic comedy as it is in science fiction.

The movie also features not only a Red Shirt (whose death is telegraphed and uninteresting), but also the old Trek staple, inexplicable death trap in the bowels of the Enterprise. I get the desire to embrace all aspects of old school Trek, but incorporating two widely-ridiculed (and repeated) devices is just damn stupid.***

There's just so much potential squandered by a lazy, seemingly-incomplete script. There were moments when I felt like I was watching place-holder scenes, where the writers dumped in cliché and archetypes, intending to replace them in later drafts with, y'know, writing. I realize Orci and Kurtzman (Transformers) aren't Tom Stoppard or William Monaghan (or even Paul Haggis), but even by their low standard this is lazy writing. Star Trek screams “strike movie,” even more so than the abhorrently bad Wolverine did, and it's frustrating - because, unlike that movie, this Trek is actually halfway decent.

*Why in the hell did this have to happen? Why did Paramount think that the Star Trek fans wouldn't accept a remake, which has become a fairly common storytelling aberration in the last decade. The James Bond and Batman fans swallowed it just fine, and like in Star Trek, there's more bad in those franchises than good.

**SPOILER! This problem (which could likely just be my problem) is brought to a head when Nimoy appears as old Spock, traveled back from the future. He looks at Pine and recognizes Kirk – obviously Pine couldn't and shouldn't appear exactly like The Shat, but Spock Prime's recognition is jarring. Not nearly as jarring as a scene he has with Quinto's Spock, though.

***Especially considering that JJ's own Lost self-consciously does Red Shirts A. more often, and B. more lazily than Roddenberry's Trek ever did.

GREATEST. POSTER. EVER.

I found this on CHUD.COM and it just tickles me to no end.  There are so many ways that this French poster for the horribly titled Wolverine spin-off movie is terrible, not the least of which being that it reminds audiences of the Hugh Jackman's other public persona, the all-singing, all-dancing, Tony-winning owner of a huge ackman.  

Anyway, this is too funny to ignore.  Please, leave comments with what YOU think angsty Logan is screaming in this candidly captured moment.  I call dibs on:

"STELLA!  STELLA!"