Category: Films and movies

While the new Star Trek movie was entertaining, it won’t feel familiar to those whose first major contact with the series was The Next Generation. It’s a hyperactive, disorderly action film, populated mostly with teenagers who look straight out of The O.C. Star Fleet Command certainly seems surprisingly willing to give command of ships to reckless young people with no command experience. Those used to the deliberative, diplomatic approach of the Picard era are likely to find this jarring, or perhaps so alien as to be part of a different fictional universe altogether. At the same time, this film is definitely less absurd than some of the previous attempts to turn Patrick Stewart into a kind of big-screen action hero. If you insist on making Star Trek in an action genre, this may be the way to do it.

This film clearly attempts to start things afresh, and the re-launch of the series is handled in a somewhat clever way. By adopting a branching universe view of how time travel works, the writers gave themselves wide scope to produce a Star Trek variant in which significant elements of the original are vacant or absent.

Star Trek is basically a summertime puff film, strongest on visual effects and its ability to be compelling on a big screen. It is distinctly disjoined from the more intellectual traditions of the Star Trek universe, and would make an awkward platform from which to return to them. That being said, it may find a place as an entertaining and less mature split-off from the more serious mass. It’s not a film I regret seeing, but it’s not something I would care to see again.

P.S. On a technical side note, nitpickers will find plenty to quibble about, in terms of plot inconsistencies and appalling physics. For instance, why an elaborate skydive-from-space operation was necessary to disable a certain thing in one instance, when it proved quite vulnerable to conventional space-based weapons later. There are also some inconsistent transporter shenanigans. This is not a film for the type of people who care about the realities of jumping between metal platforms vertically separated by more than ten metres, without serious injury.

I saw Watchmen last night and didn’t feel particularly inclined to review it. That said, it was getting late and I couldn’t think of anything else. As with all my reviews, it it is likely to contain ‘spoilers.’

When it comes to comic book films, the mark of success or failure is often whether it is compelling enough to make you stop asking questions about the unreality of what is presented. Judging by the conversations I had with friends after the film, this one didn’t quite clear the hurdle. While it was very strong visually, it lacked the originality of something like The Matrix or Sin City – both of which it clearly drew from. While some of the characters were interesting, most were either flat or very clearly derivative (James Bond villains, vengeful detectives, etc). The plot was fine, but not especially inspired, particularly in terms of ‘surprises’ that failed to surprise.

The central enigma of the film is the character of Dr. Manhattan, and I think that is where it fails most comprehensively. He isn’t compelling. He’s a dull kind of guy who likes the arid emptiness of Mars and has no special problem with killing Vietnamese soldiers for the American government, Apocalypse Now-style helicopters beside him. He is boring, rather than deep. In the end, he comes across as a kind of powerful dimwit, and nobody is emotionally affected when he wanders off. All kinds of things are deeply implausible about Dr. Manhattan, in terms of the plot, also. For instance, why the military research facility where he was actually created never tried to make any more supermen. Also, why the government seems to think he is able to stop 99% of Russian nuclear weapons, without any special system to inform him they that are coming or where they are. If he could do so without any outside assistance, he should presumably have noticed that the arch-villain had destroyed Moscow, during the climactic period of the film. The other enigma, which isn’t addressed in any way, is why some people who decide to become vigilantes have superhuman powers; it’s like X-Men, but with no premise of explanation. Presumably, the graphic novel version is more fleshed out.

One amusing thing I realized about the film is that, for at least some teenagers, it will be their first introduction to the music of Simon & Garfunkel, as well as Jimi Hendrix. The opening credits, which consist of an interesting montage of film and semi-ironic music, were actually the best part of the film. Second to those were the comic touches included from time to time. Third best was looking at Malin Akerman, though she looks a bit like a digital amalgamation of Kirsten Dunst and a few other recent female love-interest figures.

Watchmen is certainly an enjoyable enough film to watch. There are some cringe-inducing moments of violence, though they don’t have the same awful character as the ones in Sin City. It is not, however, a comic film good enough to make you forget its flaws. It will please those who are primed to appreciate it, but I doubt it will have a lasting influence on anyone.

I was unaware that a second X-Files film had been made until yesterday night. On the basis of my first impressions, it was better than the first. It involved fewer outlandish elements, more suspense, more drama between characters, and essentially more of the things that made the television series notable.

I think I managed to miss a big gap in the X-Files canon, though it is possible they simply threw a lot of unexplained material between the first and second films. Unusually for an X-Files production, I didn’t clearly recognize any Vancouver scenery during the film.

The film certainly provided plenty of opportunities for quibbling. For one, one can question whether complex surgery can be performed in a filthy, far-from-sterile environment with any hope of success. Head transplants also don’t have an obvious connection to stem cell therapies. That being said, the aesthetics of those scenes did reinforce one’s natural revulsion towards gross violations of medical ethics.

As an aside, it was strange to see how David Duchovny looks basically the same as he did during the television series, while Gillian Anderson looks dramatically different. It is hard to attribute the latter to natural aging, though perhaps that is the cause.