I'm a big geek.  I don't deny it.  I'm really exited about the new Star Trek film from director J. J. Abrams (Alias, Lost, Mission: Impossible III).  Here's a sneak peek at the new look of Trek:







Eric Bana's Romulan villain, Nero, looks pretty cool.  And the bridge of the Enterprise looks like the inside of an Apple store!  We always knew the future would run on Mac.  :)

To see more images go to startrekmovie.com.

Edit:  In case you're wondering if this has anything to do with philosophy/culture/apologetics, it does.  Here are a few quotes from this week's Entertainment Weekly:

Director Abrams adds, ''It was important to me that optimism be cool again.''  And Zachary Quinto (who plays Spock) says, ''This is a franchise that offers hope for unity — and so does Barak Obama.''

Star Trek has always been on the optimistic/humanistic side of things, and people have typically associated its ideology with liberal politics.  At the same time, however, Abrams needs this movie to appeal to the widest audience possible.  So will Star Trek push the PC envelope, or will it find a way to walk the cultural tightrope and become next summer's optimistic version of The Dark Knight?

In He Was a Quiet Man, Christian Slater plays disillusioned office worker Bob Maconel who is on the verge of shooting his co-workers. He’s a nobody who keeps to himself and lets everyone else walk over him and he’s had about as much as he could take. The only problem is that another one of the “lame” workers beats him to it. Bob intervenes to save the only person he seems to care about from a second shot, Vanessa (played by Elisha Cuthbert), and becomes an unlikely hero. A bond is formed between Vanessa and Bob that lifts him from his psychotic depression to the top of the world. But things seem to spiral out of control from the top more quickly than from the bottom, and the only question that matters is if Bob has the courage to pull the trigger.

The film is listed as a comedy, but if it’s a comedy then it fails miserably. As a drama, it paints well a melodramatic picture of being a drone in the corporate world. It provides occasional entertainment, such as a talking fish that berates Bob for not killing his co-workers. Against the backdrop of the mediocre film is an excellent performance by Christian Slater and the beautiful presence Elisha Cuthbert (she also gives a good performance but doesn’t need to).

Bob’s problem is one of meaning- he has nothing to live for. His house is a disaster, he watches a TV that doesn’t work, and the most he’s ever “gotten out” is to Sizzler. His emptiness is contrasted with the emptiness of everyone around him, and in the end it seems that no one has a purpose. The difference with Bob is that he’s the only one willing to admit it. He Was a Quiet Man is the result of a worldview that recognizes the depressing plight of humanity but offers no hope. Ultimately, the film is a waste of time and I see no reason to recommend it.

Family notice: movie contains nudity and coarse language

Since people may wish to see the film before reading a review, I've only posted the review on my Lewis blog. Read it here.

Tonight Face and I were privileged to catch an advanced screening for bloggers courtesy of Grace hill Media. We weren’t quite sure what to expect, but who can turn down a free movie?

The central character of the film is Drew Baylor (Orlando Bloom). Drew made a shoe that flopped and lost his company, well, if you around it up about 1 billion dollars. The fiasco inevitably lost him his job in Oregon and self worth. But just before he commits suicide he receives a call from his sister that their father had died and it is his job to go to Kentucky to retrieve the body. On his flight there he meets Clair Colburn (Kirsten Dunst), an eccentric flight attendant who won’t leave him alone.

The stage is then set for the bulk of the movie- Drew’s interactions with his family and his love affair with Clair. There is a strong emphasis on authenticity and community, though it appears that the central message is to love life well no matter what trials occur.

Surprisingly, most of the movie was hilarious. Perhaps the greatest strength of the film is that it’s a feel good movie. It leaves you feeling like you should love life and be a better person. However, it doesn’t really offer a reason why. You would think in going to Kentucky, religion would come up at some point in Drew’s large family, but it doesn’t. Clair has some minor New Age-ish tendencies but that’s about as deep as the spirituality goes.

Some aspects were extremely well-written and creative, but there were some significant plot holes left unexplained. For example, Clair says she’s going to Hawaii for work but then randomly shows up at Drew’s hotel. Wouldn’t her airline have a problem with that? We got to know Drew fairly well, but after all of that we don’t really know much about Clair or any of the other characters in the film. Too many of them seem flat. Drew’s mother (Susan Sarandon) does and says some things that really don’t make any sense.

This might be a good family film except for a few unnecessary sexual references. Despite the plot and character problems, I would still recommend the film. Sometimes in spite of all that it’s nice to see a lighthearted movie that will make you laugh and help you appreciate some of the simple things in life.

Yet another remake... I vaguely remember reading War of the Worlds a number of years ago. I do recall it actually being a fairly good read. I wonder if Spielberg read it, or if he just took some major (loose) plot points…

Anti-psychiatry guru Tom Cruise stars as a father who doesn’t know how to father, Ray Ferrier. His daughter, Rachel- played by Dakota Fanning, is the real star. Ray also has a son, Robbie, played by Justin Catwin, but I began to hope he would be incinerated- even though he was wearing a Red Sox hat (he was that bad).

War of the Worlds has some good action sequences, great special effects- especially the flower at the end, but it really has no significant plot. Obviously there’s a problem, the world is being attacked by aliens, and the problem’s resolved, but there are so many holes in the plot it’s like watching Matt Lauer interview Cruise about psychiatry. In fact, I could have sworn I saw Ray lecturing his son about the history of psychiatry at some point. If you take psychiatric medication, you may end up like the loony character played by Tim Robbins, who was also only decent. The ending was predictably cheesy and irreconcilable with the plot. 

Cruise was okay. Justin Catwin insulted me by wearing the Sox hat; he was horrible. Dakota Fanning was spectacular. It’s too bad her and Morgan Freeman (narrator) had to be tied to this flick. The great effects and Fanning’s acting can’t redeem this rather mediocre film. Perhaps George Lucas rubbed off on Spielberg and he lost his senses. It was not worth the $10 and I don’t think it’ll be worth a few bucks to rent either. Maybe it’s worth borrowing if you have a friend who’s duped into buying it. While it’s probably too frightening for children, nothing in it frightened me. There’s also some language. Go see Revenge of the Sith or Batman Begins again instead of this one.

I'm going to have to disagree with Roger on this one.  I hate to say it, but I have to give this movie a 6 overall--it's a 6 trying very hard to be a 7, but not quite making it.  I've been trying to pin down exactly why I thought Batman Begins was just mediocre--maybe my expectations were too high.  I thought it was a bit preachy and political, and I just couldn't connect with Bruce Wayne.  I think it was because Bruce seemed to be lacking a core.  There wasn't really a sense that he was trying to serve something bigger than himself.  Of course, at first he wasn't, but even when he found a purpose, there still wasn't a sense that Batman's ideas of right and wrong were actually rooted in anything.  Maybe this is because Batman's actions were taken more out of personal desire than from a sense of duty to the good, maybe it was the fault of the filmmakers, or maybe it was just the secular European influence (this last part didn't occur to me until later, but this actually makes sense).

 

The movie still had some good moments, and I did think there were a few great ideas--especially the one Roger referred to in his review, although I have a slightly different take on it (I also liked the question, "Why do we fall?"); but I didn't think all the ideas of this movie fit together well--the voice was unclear, creating a disjointed, confused undercurrent.  And I found the movie, as a whole, somewhat soulless--empty, because there wasn't a sense they were serving something higher and greater than themselves.  Spidey is still number one.

 

Go ahead and see this movie--just check your expectations, and know what you're getting:  action, action, kung-fu action, action, stilted dialogue, disjointed ideas (some great), and Christian Bale in a Batman suit.  If any of these things appeal to you (and I won't judge you if they do), then head for a matinee showing.

Who’s afraid of the big black bat? Evil. That’s the idea anyway. Batman Begins chronicles the rise of one of America’s favorites comic book heroes. Whatever you wanted to know about Batman, played by Christian Bale, you will likely find out. But the back-story is only a third of the film. The rest in played out in a run-down Gotham falling victim to poverty and crime where only a few good people believe it can be saved.

The movie has no shortage of stars. Bale is backed by Katie Holmes who plays his child-hood friend turned love interest, Michael Caine who plays beloved Alfred, Liam Neeson plays his mentor, and Morgan Freeman plays his scientist. The only performance I thought could have been better was Katie Holmes, but she did okay. Neeson was spectacular as always. Bale, who also stared in one of my all time favorites- Swing Kids, was phenomenal. I had my doubts going in about how he would do, but he exceeded all my expectations.

The entire film exceeded my expectations. Thank goodness Clooney as Batman is gone. Bale is the real Batman, the jewel set in this masterpiece. The plot was almost predictable, but still strong. There were a number of super hero clichés broken, which is nice to see.

Batman is the one super hero who people can usually relate to. He wasn’t bitten by a spider, descended from another planet, or burned by cosmic rays. He was bitten by tragedy, descended from good normal parents, and burned by the evil in the world. He’s one of us. He’s who we wish we could be. This movie brings that man to life. It emphasizes the necessary theme of good verses evil and shows us how thin the line between the two can be. And it reminds us that who we are “underneath” is known by what we do. “Faith without works is dead.” Batman Begins is easily one of the best films of 2005.

No language or sex issues, but it does have a dark edge to it that deems it inappropriate for small children. Highest recommendations for everyone else.

Don’t worry, I wont be exposing any of the interesting plot points that aren’t painfully obvious to anyone who’s seen the original trilogy. Yes, there are some things that some of you don’t know, so I’ll be careful.

 

This is one of the most anticipated films of all time, if not the most anticipated. What makes this film a bizarre case is that most people who see the film know most of what they’re going to see. They know who has to die, who has to live, and who has to fall. The theater I went to had 11 sold out screenings for midnight (two at 3:15 am), and the one I saw was in digital (which is quite a beauty to behold). There was little to surprise us. And that’s really the beauty of it.

 

It is no little known fact that Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader. We’ve really known this since Empire Strikes Back. This film chronicles Skywalker’s fall to the dark side. But even more than just tell about it, it invites us into it. Our emotions are caught up in his decisions, his passions, and his confusion. We begin to see how easy it is to fall when it may seem we’re trying to do good.

 

The irony is much deeper though; George Lucas nailed it. I knew every major plot point, I spotted the Millennium Falcon, Grand Moff Tarkin, etc. And yet, all I could feel when I left was a depressing numbness. I knew, and yet I could not believe that Anakin had committed such evils. I could not believe that he fell to the dark side so easily, even though I could almost sympathize with his early decisions. Lucas didn’t have to introduce some big twist; he really couldn’t have. But he did better; he made me believe it could happen to me.

 

There will be plenty of discussions about how the movie relates to politics and truth, and I will have much to say about them (don’t believe your newspapers). Lucas delivered on everything the fan boys wanted- amazing lightsaber fights, the cutting of many appendages (including heads), great effects, etc. But when I left I wasn’t thinking about all that. I was left meandering in the emptiness and despair of a hopeless man. That Lucas could do that means he did it right.

 

No, the acting isn’t much better. Nor is the cheesy romance. In fact, it’s amazing to me how the film could be so good in spite of some choppy acting at times. Yet none of that really mattered in the end. It truly gives meaning to “A New Hope,” because we are left with next to none in the end. Overall Grade: a solid A.

 

A note to those who care- as usual no swearing or sexual content, however, there are some grueling scenes that I would consider inappropriate for children. The PG-13 rating is deserved.

Just a warning, this will likely be the most biased review of a movie I will ever give. Why? Because I’m a Sox fan- always have been, always will be. This movie made me feel like we won the World Series all over again. Jimmy Fallon plays a high school teacher, Ben, who inherited season tickets at Fenway Park and is to every extreme- a die-hard Sox fan. Romance kindles smoothly between Ben and Lindsay, played by Drew Barrymore, until opening day comes around and Ben’s other love is introduced.

 

Aside from a very serious scene in the middle of the film, it is non-stop comedy. Fallon and Barrymore have natural chemistry that consistently works, even in tackling the more dramatic moments of the film. The only plot problem is that their relationship seems to go from, “Hi, I wanted to ask you if I could ask you out…” to spending every spare moment together in a few seconds.

 

Of course the romance is an important element of the film, but for me, it’s all about the Sox. The film does a great job of chronically the 2004 season. The great wins, the disappointing losses, the other disappointing losses, and the ultimate victory. I relived the season in a 100-minute movie. I remember the game when Matsui (of the evil Yankees) hit two home runs. I remember the feeling of defeat and hopelessness when the Sox were down 3-0 to the Yankees in the playoffs. The film captured those moments and brought me back to them. I almost needed a tissue.

 

This is a good film for just about everyone. Non-baseball fans will appreciate the romantic comedy element. Baseball fans, especially Sox fans, will appreciate the great culture of the Red Sox Nation. For those who need to know, there are some sexual comments, though nothing to turn away from. Overall it is a great film and a great way to kick off the 2005 season. Grade: A

Who do you call when you need an actor with no personality and is as dry as a desert? The one and only Keanu Reeves. Welcome to Bill & Ted’s excellent adventure into demonology. Reeves plays John Constantine, an exorcist who apparently has nothing better to do than keep demons from crossing over into our world. All we ever find out about him is he’s been able to see demons since he was a kid and he’s died for two minutes. To this extent, the character is as flat as Reeves; a perfect fit.

 

According to the story, demons and angels made a deal not to cross over to our “plain,” but all of the sudden the demons want to break the deal. Constantine crosses paths with Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) whose sister recently committed suicide and Angela suspects foul play. The two team up to take on the demons, and a very odd angel. To her credit, Rachel Weisz does the best anyone probably could do in this role. To Reeves credit, his lack of emotion seems to work somehow as it did in the first Matrix.

 

One way I judge entertainment value in a film is how I feel and think after ward. If the film has done a good job of making the world real and inviting me in, it’s done its job well. The quintessential film to use as an example- The Truman Show. For the next month I couldn’t help but feel like my life was a show just like Truman’s. This is a rare quality. Though I loved Gladiator, I never felt like I was Maximus. For Constantine, I did feel like kicking some demon afterward. The plot was at times hard to follow; the “twist” (if that’s appropriate) I still don’t quite get. While it was certainly not of Oscar quality, and neither were any of the performances, it still had some decent entertainment value.

 

The theology seemed promising at first, but was ultimately a disaster. In an early scene the angel Gabriel tells Constantine that his works (exorcising demons) doesn’t cut it for salvation, and neither does simple knowledge. Instead, he needed to believe and trust in God. This bright spot in the theology is ruined by a works based ending and by God being mysteriously absent during the whole spiritual war.  

 

I did have two favorite scenes- one early on when the “Alfred” type character arrives at Constantine’s apartment with some gadgets. During this scene a jazz song is played that Prager plays every morning. The song made the scene more enjoyable. The other was at the end. I can’t help but smile to see Reeves flips Lucifer off. Perhaps I’ll buy the DVD just for that... maybe not. Overall, it’s worth the $2.50 theater showing or rental, but I’m glad I didn’t pay $10 to see it. Grade: B-