Nostalgia. Not for certain time, but for a certain kind of film making. J.J.Abrams has been criticized for making films very much like the “old” Steven Spielberg films, but I think that’s silly – those were very good films.

The premise is simple enough, a group of kids in a small town is shooting a film as part of a project then something happens – a train crash. The military becomes involved, mysterious events unfold, people start to go missing, and it all builds up predictably towards the climactic end sequences where all is revealed. Throw in an unlikely, and wounded hero, a little bit of teen-love, and some snappy dialogue and you’ve got yourself a movie. And loud noises, DON’T FORGET LOUD NOISES!

Although formulaic in almost every way imaginable, the predictability does not take away from the enjoyment of the film. Many other films bring all the right elements together, but still somehow don’t “work”, they don’t suspend the audience’s disbelief, and often fail to make that emotional connection that ties viewers to the characters in the film. This film works, and it works well.

In many ways it most closely resembled E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Since Star Trek, Abrams seems to have developed a liking for using lens-flare in many of his shots and this has become part of his signature style (something I’m sure his director of photography is annoyed about). He has also become quite proficient at using sudden, surprising, entries of “things” into the shot (along with loud noises) to jolt the viewer out of the comfort zone.

As mentioned before, the story is quite predictable, yet you still sit through the movie craving every new detail that dots the line from A to B. The film-within-a-film, is also used very effectively, not only as a plot device, but also to foreshadow the larger film itself. It is also worth waiting around during the end credits, as the film project the kids were working on (shot on Super 8 film, hence the name) is shown in its entirety.

Elle Fanning and Joel Courtney do a stellar job in the lead roles, and the supporting roles are also well-cast. In particular because none of the supporting actors, especially the adults, overshadow the kids. Towards the end, as all the loose ends are being tied up, some of the “resolutions” seem a little contrived. One also has to spend a significant part of the film getting over the minor technical detail of a small pickup truck derailing a train (although, for what it’s worth, the derailing scene is spectacular if overblown¹). There are also other minor factual errors which you wouldn’t notice, the appearance of a Sony Walkman (before its time) and the mention of a Rubik’s cube (also before its time) and these don’t detract at all from the watchability of the film.

Overall, a predictable yet exciting, spectacular, and emotionally-involving film experience. I give it four stars out of five.

The Original

The film is a refreshingly original take on the vampire genre. Oskar is a 12-year-old boy who is a “difficult” child. He’s a little anti-social, and is the preferred punching bag for a group of local bullies. He lives with his mother in a small apartment block when an old man and a young girl (presumably his daughter) move in next door. The plot revolves around the experiences of the boy over the course of a few weeks during which he becomes friends with Eli, the girl who is also 12, more or less. He gets bullied, Eli solves a Rubik’s cube, he stands up to the bullies, and a few of the town’s residents die under mysterious circumstances along the way. At some point, Oskar falls in love with Eli and then discovers that she is a vampire, and that she has been 12 for quite some time. The bullying escalates, the killing escalates, and the love escalates, all coming to a crunch at the end. Formulaic, yet magnificently executed.

A thriller, and a horror story this may be, but it is mostly a love story and a very good one at that. A very pure, slightly awkward, and innocent love between two children is very well portrayed by the two leads. Lina Leandersson deserves especially high praise for her role as Eli, an extremely complex character. The production of the film itself is sound, with snappy dialogue and that slightly creepy ambiance, essential to all good films of the vampire genre. The screenplay was, in fact, written by the author of the original book and from what I’ve heard (I have yet to read the book, but it’s on my to-do list, right after “learning Swedish”) much has been cut out, but it preserves the essential essence of what the story is about.

The film is rated R is most countries, but that’s because it’s so raw. It doesn’t shy away from being slightly uncomfortable at times, and it certainly doesn’t shy away from being creepy (c’mon, it’s a film about a 12-year-old vampire). It is gory in sections, but not overly so. In fact, the “gore” factor is used very sparingly, and to good effect. The pace is good, and what little action there is, is very believable. I was never really aware of the Swedish film industry prior to this, but everything in this movie “clicks”. I would recommend it to anyone, and was surprised to learn that it wasn’t Sweden’s entry for the best foreign language film in the Academy awards of 2009. I would recommend this film to anyone.

The female leads in the original (left) and remake (right)

The Remake

You’re in for a surprise, because this is actually really good. Fans of the original film, myself included, cringed when we heard that there was going to be a Hollywood remake. Hollywood remakes of good foreign language films are rarely any good, and most are unwatchable. This one is different. Matt Reeves deserves many hugs from everybody for his exceptional treatment of the remake. He pretty much stuck to the old saying of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

The remake is almost exactly the same as the original. It is spooky how similar they made the two films. The story is (almost) exactly the same, most of the scenes are exactly the same, right down to the pacing of the line delivery. Some of the scenes even followed the shot sequences from the original (yes, I’m a movie nerd and I remember these things). There were very few changes, and as a result, the essence of the original film was largely preserved.

A few complaints: In parts where the dialogue was modified, it was amended. Amended to explain things more. You know how a joke isn’t funny if you have to explain it? Well, horror films that are supposed to be shrouded in an air of mystery begin to lose that air if you just keep explaining things away. Similarly with some of the visuals. The filmmakers did well to mimic many of the shots from the original, but in the instances where they didn’t, they showed more, again diminishing the creepy, mysterious ambiance somewhat (this is especially true for the final “showdown” scene, which was MUCH better in the original). I am just nitpicking a little bit here, if you hadn’t seen the original film, you probably wouldn’t notice these little missteps. There is also a small amount of CGI in some of the “attack” scenes, which I thought was not only unnecessary, but poorly executed.

Certain things were added to modify the story which initially annoyed me. I won’t write what they are, because many of them will spoil key parts of the film, but upon reflection these modifications really weren’t so bad. One of them even causes the overall story of the film’s universe (i.e. stuff that happened before and after the events of the film) to change significantly, but really… it doesn’t take away from the overall experience of the movie. For those who haven’t read the book or seen the original, these modifications wouldn’t even register.

The actors who play the leads were fantastic. They needed to be, to be able to fill the shoes of those who played in the original version. My only real complaint is that they both look a little too healthy and wholesome. Chloe Morentz you will recognize from Kick Ass, and 500 Days of Summer, and she really is an exceptional talent, but she’s also just a little bit too good-looking to give off that creepy, awkward vibe that instills a slight level of discomfort in the viewer. Still, she deserves an award for this role, and if there was a category for “Best Hollywood remake for a foreign language film” then Let Me In would have it in the bag.

Shot for shot, the remake mimics the original very well

So there, I begrudgingly admit that this is not just a good remake, but a very good one, and certainly a very watchable film in its own right. I do prefer the original, even though I have to read subtitles for the whole thing. Sometimes I feel that they should have just dubbed the original and re-released it in the US. The slight modifications that were made take some of the edge off the film, which is a pity because it really had a chance to be truly great as there is something to be said for Hollywood production values. It did however serve the purpose of bringing this wonderful story to a wider audience while also showcasing the talents of two very good child actors.

Both films are definitely worth seeing. Watch Let Me In first, then Let The Right One In (why did they change the name, SERIOUSLY!?). If you only watch one, make it the Swedish one. This is not a horror film, but a love story disguised as one, and a very good one at that. I wish more people made films like this.

The original Tron was released in 1982. I had barely been born at the time. I first watched it on TV, when I was a young and impressionable boy and I remember enjoying it. I recently re-watched the original to refresh my memory  when the sequel/remake came out. It turns out that this wasn’t necessary as the new film, while ostensibly a sequel, is understandable by anyone who hasn’t seen the original. Or at least, its level of understandability is not affected much by whether or not one has seen the original. The plot is essentially exactly the same making this film a sequel and a remake all at the same time. In fact it is surprising how little has changed in 28 years. There is one significant difference though – the new film is not quite as good.

The special effects have certainly improved. The way the movie is set up gives cgi directors the perfect excuse to showcase their art. In addition to this, the new film makes use of 3D glasses which adds yet another dimension (quite literally) to the film. The implementation of 3D was actually quite well-handled because the film makers didn’t use it all the time. Scenes in the “real world” were shot and displayed in 2D while those in the computer world were in 3D. The transition was also quite well-handled and the feeling it gave the viewer was reminiscent of the scene in The Matrix where Keanu Reeves’ character first wakes up from the Matrix and things are slightly confused.

Unfortunately the makers of this film dedicated too many resources to making the film look cool. It does look very cool, but one can’t help thinking that more effort could have been spent on better dialogue, more character development, and possibly an original plot, or at least one that wasn’t exactly the same as in the previous film. There are plenty of textual references and small-scale sight gags which remind older viewers of the original film. Indeed there are many references to the original, although it would have been nice (and friends of mine who are fans of the original also agree) to see more of the character Tron, who sadly only makes a few fleeting appearances.

The strongest thread linking this film with the original is, of course, Jeff Bridges. It is also with Jeff Bridges that one of the few original ideas of this film is manifested – there are two of him. One is a clone computer program who he created in his own image (and who doesn’t age) to assist him in building the perfect system, and the other is an “old” (current) version of himself. In Jeff Bridge’s computer clone is probably also the best “special effect” of the whole film, and that is the recreation of a young Jeff Bridges.

Jeff Bridges in the Original Tron, and his old and new self from the more recent film

It is no secret to anyone who I’ve spoken to about this film that I feel that Bridges carries the whole film. If Jeff Bridges wasn’t in the film, I don’t think I would have bothered watching it. The main guy, I forget his name, has laughably poor screen presence although some better direction and writing certainly would have helped. It was just difficult to take him seriously after he is sucked into the computer program, and then first sees his father, who he hasn’t seen for 20 years and believed dead, and displays only the slightest hint of an emotional reaction.

The token female role this time is played by Olivia Wilde, who I admit is the other reason I went to see this film. She is quite pleasing to the eye, make no mistake, but a great deal more should have been done with her. She has screen presence, and isn’t devoid of acting skill. She was however somewhat lacking in good lines throughout this film and her character’s lack of character did not make up for how well she wore her tight-fitting outfit. The “look” they gave her was also strongly reminiscent of Leeloo from Luc Besson’s masterpiece The Fifth Element. Milla Jovovich fortunately had a lot more acting to do in that film. In short, don’t watch this film just to see Olivia Wilde look hot, you should watch an episode of House instead.

Also look out for Cilian Murphy who plays the role of Ed Dillinger’s son in the new film (it would have been nice to see more of his character, but sadly that all fell into a plot hole). Another notable cameo appearance is from Steven Lisberger, the writer/director/producer of the original Tron movie, making a brief appearance as a bartender. One wonders why they didn’t ask him to play a more significant role in the remake. Instead, the direction of this film was entrusted to Joseph Kosinski who has never before directed a feature film, and the main writing credits go to two people whose names I cannot recall (and don’t wish to) who have only ever written for TV series’. Sure, there have been many first-time directors who did very well (such as Hugh Hudson on Chariots of Fire) but why they would do this on the 20-year-sequel to one of the largest cult film franchises in history is beyond me.

Plot holes abound, there is no MCP, and the light bikes don’t do 90 degree turns anymore. Olivia Wilde is hot, but not that hot, the CGI is cool, but not that cool, and the 3D is not enough to lift the flat mood and texture of the film into “watchable” territory. Jeff Bridges carries the film that I didn’t expect much from, and got even less. Even the subtle references to the old film aren’t that great (check out the posters). If you get to see it for free, or very cheaply on a night when you’re really bored and there’s no curling on TV, then see it. Otherwise… you’re better off renting the original and being amused by 1982′s idea of cutting-edge special effects.

The poster from the 1982 and 2010 films side by side for comparison.

A Spinning Top

Inception is a great movie, and one that really must be seen. Christopher Nolan delights moviegoers once again with a summer blockbuster that is sure to have everyone talking. This sci-fi heist movie is held together by great performances by the leads which tie in the resolution of emotional issues with strong dialogue and themes which constantly call into question the nature of reality itself. As much as the opening lines of this review seem clichéd, this is an unusual movie in that it truly does deliver on those promises.

Like the last epic blockbuster to grace the silver screen – Avatar, this film was almost a decade in the making. While James Cameron certainly had the kind of bankable reputation in Hollywood that would have allowed him to make Avatar whenever he wanted, he chose to wait until the technology was up to the task. Christopher Nolan’s setback was that he lacked the requisite reputation to convince a studio to give him the kind of funding that a movie like this really deserves. So, in the last ten years, he made Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. To borrow a well-used line, he had me at Memento (to any who haven’t seen it, it comes highly recommended). All the films except insomnia were also written by him or by the team of him and his brother. His remarkable and meteoric rise gave him the ability to bring us The Dark Knight, a true cinematic masterpiece (and, in my opinion, still his finest work), and the commercial success of The Dark Knight has allowed him to bring us Inception.

I will aim this article towards those who have not seen it, and will try not to give too much away. I may pen a later article packed with spoilers in which I will attempt to start some kind of discussion about the film, aimed at moviegoers who have already seen it.

I was fortunate enough to see it both in a regular cinema and at IMAX within a few days of each other. First a technical note – there is little to be gained by seeing this film in IMAX. With the Dark Knight, certain scenes were shot in IMAX format so for those scenes, you really noticed it. In Inception, no scenes were shot in IMAX format, although some were shot in 65mm (rather than the regular 35mm anamorphic standard). However, if you live in a part of the world where the quality of the seats in an IMAX cinema is significantly better than in a regular one, then perhaps it is worth it, as the film runs for 2:28 minutes which is a long time to be sitting in a seat. Something else unusual that I noticed is that, in Hong Kong at least, there were no previews and very few ads shown before the start of the movie, so it started very close to the stated start-time. Most people (myself included) are used to anywhere from 10-20 minutes to pass between the start time on your ticket until the time that the movie actually begins. This may not apply anywhere else in the world, but if you’re reading this and live in Hong Kong – don’t be late. Despite the length, from a plot perspective, this is a very dense film, especially at the start and at the end. Missing the first 5 minutes can completely change how you perceive the movie.

The pace never seems frantic though. It is sometimes difficult to keep up with what is happening and it pays to pay attention to the small details in every scene. Having seen it twice, I can say that I picked up a lot of things on my second viewing that I hadn’t noticed on my first. Those familiar with Nolan’s older work, in particular Memento and The Prestige, will know that Nolan, being a student of English Literature, loves to play with narrative structure. This film is no different, although instead of the usual tools of flashback, and cutting between parallel storylines with different characters, he plays with the perception of the passage of time in the dream state.

Indeed the perception of reality is at the very center of this work. We ask ourselves “what would it be like if we could share dreams?”. There are hints of the Matrix here with characters interacting in a constructed reality, but in Inception that reality is constructed on the fly, by participants in the dream, out of a combination of their conscious and subconscious minds. One of the dreamers constructs the world, while the others populate it with their subconscious. The implications of this are many and varied, but as a heist movie the aspect which is explored is stealing information through the subconscious, because how can you guard against something over which you have no conscious control? As the title suggests, this particular story arc takes it one step further and explores the possibility of inception – planting the seed for an idea rather than stealing one.

The man hired for this job is Dominic Cobb, played by Leonardo DiCaprio who does very well in this role. His character’s interaction with their new “architect” Ariadne, played by Ellen Paige, lends the plot an emotional backbone that draws the audience in and makes us care in what would otherwise be just another silly action film. At times the supporting cast seem only there to advance to plot and I would have liked to see a greater degree of character development for them. However, I suspect that it is likely that that character development existed at some point but had to be cut out due to time constraints. In any case, each of the cast members brings something to the table, especially with veterans Michael Cain and Marion Cotillard keeping it real. Marion especially brings exactly the kind of chilling, haunting quality to her character, befitting of the role she plays as DiCaprio’s character’s wife’s projection in his subconscious.

The acting is very good. Notable among the cast are Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt who in this film make the transition into mature adult actors. Not that they weren’t before, but they had always played less-mature, less-serious roles. Page of course best known for her role as Juno in Juno and Gordon-Levitt whose last significant role was 500 Days of Summer, which was decent until it was shot in the foot with an awful ending, and who we thought would forever struggle to shake off his identity as Tommy from the TV series 3rd Rock From the Sun. An actor normally thought of as a teen/chick flick type is graduated to the role of right hand man to the lead, and action hero giving a strong performance of a strong character who incidentally will now be remembered for “winning” one of the coolest fight scenes ever to take place in a hotel corridor.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a hotel corridor

In true Christopher Nolan style, the layers of narrative slowly build throughout the film and eventually crash towards their inevitable climax. The plot never feels terribly tired or predictable, and although the action sequences could be criticized for being slightly on the fantastic side of reality, since it all takes place in a dream, it is difficult to be able to pin down a technical fault with that. Perhaps the naming of Ellen Page’s character “Ariadne” was a little bit over-the-top as she not only builds the labyrinth world of the dreams, but also helps DiCaprio’s character out of his own labyrinth (although thankfully there was no appearance of a Minotaur).

The special effects are well done in that they aren’t particularly intrusive. They also don’t look particularly “unreal” as effects shots tend to be in films these days (really Michael Bay, a robot climbing a pyramid?). This is no small feat considering that the dream worlds, by definition, had to be unreal yet believable. The difference really is between taking something that is obviously not real; like rows of abandoned apartment blocks collapsing into the sea in the way that glaciers calve, and then making it real as opposed to taking something that in principle could be real; like a plane crash, or shark, and making it look like it was faked.

It’s difficult to do anything other than recommend the film, and it is difficult to write too much about what makes the film great without spoiling too much of the story. So I will simply say that you should see it. Don’t forget to pee before entering the cinema, don’t sit in the front few rows (a lot of deliberately shaky camera work is used and those susceptible to motion sickness may feel ill), and be prepared in your mind to absorb a lot of detail and dialogue in a short space of time. While I still believe that Nolan’s best work is the Dark Knight, and while it is still only August, I will say that I believe strongly that this will be the year’s best film. Will it get an academy award? Who the hell knows – I didn’t think the Hurt Locker was that great a film (and the Academy needs to learn how their own voting system works), and the Academy and I often have our disagreements (not that ANYBODY gives a hoot).

As a frequent lucid dreamer myself, I should warn others in a similar way that the realism of the portrayal of lucid dreaming may scare you, especially the way in which unexpected elements of your subconscious often make intrusions. Also, if you are in the midst of an existential crisis which is severe enough to cause panic attacks, then I would highly recommend that you let that episode pass before seeing this film. Like Nolan’s other works, this film has that rare ability to entertain in very conventional ways, while also being challenging to the viewer, and quite original in it’s concept and vision. I give it five stars out of five.

A relatively unknown animated feature from Ireland rocketed into the limelight with an academy award nomination for best animated feature. Although ultimately losing out to Pixar’s “Up”, it is the author’s opinion that this film should have won that particular award. All the elements of plot, visuals, music, and character development come together in this brilliantly complete movie experience. Aspiring film makers should take note because this isn’t just a wonderful example of an animated film, but a brilliant film full stop. It is an exemplary example of what a film should be, and that is a vehicle to tell a story.

The story is about a book – the Book of Kells, which is considered an Irish national treasure. Set in the 800s against the backdrop of viking raids it follows the story of a young monk in the abbey of Kells where his uncle, the abbot, is coordinating the building of a very large wall around the town to defend from the vikings. During the course of the story, Kells is visited by brother Aidan, a master illuminator who is part-way through his book, the book of Iona, named for the island he previously fled after it was overrun by vikings. The young monk takes an interest in illustration and the book, and in the process must journey into the forest where he encounters fear as well as a helpful spirit.

Aisling shows Brendan around her forest

The film is paced well from start to finish, and the characters (with their lovely irish accents) captivate the audience’s interest from the get-go. The real crowning glory of this film however, is the visual style. The animation is hand-drawn rather than computer generated, and reflects the desire of the film makers for life to imitate art (or art to imitate art) for one of the features of the book of Kells itself is it’s arresting illustrations and unique visual style. As such, every frame of this film is a wonder to behold as it very well reflects the visual style of the book of Kells, all the way down to the finest details and motifs. The unique visual experience immerses the audience in the universe of the film and suspends disbelief far better than most films of recent memory.

It is a great pity that this film did not receive a very wide cinematic release, but such is the plight of very small studios. It certainly deserves a wider release as it is entertaining in a way that even a small child can understand, yet does not fall into the trap of dumbing-down the content in order that it may be more easily classified as a “kids movie” (although the promotional material does seem aimed that way). A number of smaller cinemas are still playing it in the US. With any luck, the added publicity that an academy award nomination brings will ensure that it gets a good DVD release, but until then, there’s always the internet.

Watch this film! It’s only 75 minutes of your life, and you’ll love it.

Watch the trailer below:

Neill Blomkamps District 9 is edgy and brilliant

The readers of my website who have been following for a long time will know that I have written the occasional film review. In truth, I review a shockingly small percentage of the films that I watch. Part of the reason for this is because I often can’t be bothered, but the main reason is because I don’t want this website to become a movie reviews site, or to become known as one. That may seem strange, but this website is very much my public “face” on the internet, and while I am very much into movies, I don’t strongly identify with being known primarily as a film critic. In truth, I’m not particularly enamored with being known as a speed skater, preferring “mathematician”, “scientist”, or even “photographer”. (I also answer to “shit stirrer”, and “THAT guy”)

Recently though, I’ve been getting back into the business of watching a lot of films. In my youth, I was a very frequent patron of a local video rental store and I have easily seen over a thousand films, most of them very bad. These days, with the advent of the internet and torrenting, it has become increasingly easy to watch whatever films one chooses. I also fly a lot and boredom on long-haul flights combined with increasingly convenient entertainment systems has further increased my movie-watching opportunities. On the subject of technological advances, it has become increasingly cheap and easy to get into the business of making films. That’s right, I’m getting into film making. It has long been on the cards for there to be a TV show or documentary made about the Australian speed skating team, and the extraordinary story of its formation and progress, now punctuated by Sophie Muir’s participation in the Olympic Winter Games.

One of my mini-philosophies on life is that, if you ever want to be good at anything, there are two things that you must do: (1) observe as many examples of people who are good at doing that thing, and their work, and (2) practice as much as possible. I think that is the key to my success at still photography, that I spend a lot of time just looking at really good photos and thinking about them, and also that I just get out there and take a lot of photos (in the last 12 months, I’ve taken well over 60,000 photos).

So, as part of my preparation for constructing the documentary on the Australian Speed Skating team, I’ve assigned myself several bits of homework. First of all, I’ve begun making short videos (the training video, Josh’s introduction, and Sophie’s Pep Talk are examples). Second of all, I’ve been watching all the nominees for this year’s academy award for best picture (and then some). I’m a very opinionated and snobbish movie watcher preferring Lawrence of Arabia over Titanic any day, and one should keep this in mind when reading my reviews about the films and my opinions on their chances at the best picture award. But first, the nominees:

Avatar

James Cameron’s 3D epic is not a bad film, not at all. It is noteworthy for many reasons: first and foremost, it is in 3D. Unlike other offerings requiring polarizing glasses, the 3D-ness of Avatar was very well done. It wasn’t gimmicky, and after you got over the initial excitement of watching a movie in 3D, you mostly forgot about it and it really just enhanced the medium rather than becoming a distraction. I imagine that the first moviegoers watching films in color back in the 30s had a similar experience. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the future of film although we may not see widespread adoption for quite some time. The commercial success of Avatar, however, is very encouraging as it was undoubtedly a very costly production, and almost certainly recouped its costs.

Once you strip away all the technical wizardry, what are you left with? A well-paced plot with a fairly simple story, wrapped in a handful of deeper questions about the value of modernity, technology, and spiritualism in a post-colonial world. Filled with clichés, it is almost as if Cameron is making a mockery of the genre. “Unobtainium” is the classic MacGuffin and it is only actually seen once in the film’s entire 162 minutes. Visually, many scenes are strongly reminiscent of older Hayao Miyazaki films. The floating islands remind me of Laputa, and the tree of souls and its surrounds look a lot like scenes from Princess Mononoke. The writing and dialogue in general is sound but nothing special. In fact, it reminds me of action films from 15-20 years ago which, back then, would have been considered very bland, but in the context of the current crop of nearly-unwatchable action films (like 2012) which take bad dialogue and writing to whole new levels, it is a breath of fresh air.

The characters are not particularly complex, nor do they really need to be. Stephen Lang’s performance as head of security is quite strong, but is borderline overkill, especially towards the end where the energy of the film escalates and his behavior becomes frenzied. Michelle Rodriguez also played her character well and kept it very “real” in a surreal environment. Sam Worthington’s accent changes annoyingly throughout the film, but his performance was otherwise decent. He certainly didn’t mess it up, but an actor with a greater screen presence may have been able to add more substantially to the role.

Certainly a contender for best cinematography, and best editing, it is not best picture material. It is almost a certainty for best special effects even though it is up against two very strong nominees in Star Trek, as well as District 9 (both blend their special effects into the film more subtly). The academy and I haven’t always agreed though, so Avatar could well win best picture, even though I don’t believe to be good enough to even deserve a nomination.

The Blind Side

This is good old fashioned storytelling in film form. This is a formulaic story about a disadvantaged and talented sporting youth being adopted by a wealthy family. It is based on a true story, and focuses on the human struggle above all else, and that is its strength. The struggle is a mighty one, and the story is real, giving the movie an emotional weight that many sporting movies find difficult to find.

Sandra Bullock plays a very good WASP and carries the narrative of the film. Having only seen one of the other nominees for best actress, it is difficult to say whether she will get the nod, but she takes on the role well and with a maturity that I didn’t expect.

As for best picture, I doubt it will win. There’s just not enough there. If Bullock had pulled out a performance on the level of Jack Nicholson’s in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, then that alone could have pushed this into the hunt. While engaging, it didn’t feel urgent enough. While touching, it just wasn’t moving enough. It is an outside, but highly unlikely contender.

District 9

Neill Blomkamp was discovered by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson and he does a stellar job with this edgy and brilliant piece. Curiously, he did not receive a nomination for best director, but his is, in my opinion, the strongest contender for the title this year.

Based very loosely on the infamous district 13 in Johannesburg, this film is ostensibly about a large number of alien refugees who have to be dealt with by a sinister, privatized “Multinational United” corporation. It is a poignant statement about racism, segregation, and privatization. The best thing about it all, is that it doesn’t actually state any of these things to make that statement, instead, relying on the story to reveal those things to us. The character development and transformation of Wikus van der Merwe takes us through this gritty film at a brisk pace from the start all the way through to its conclusion.

It is similar in many ways to the 1988 film Alien Nation, although the situation of the aliens in this case is slightly different, as is the overall motivation behind them. Towards the end of the film, the tone changes slightly and it becomes more of an action shoot-out, which is disappointing. Nevertheless, it remains engaging and riveting throughout, and was a surprise commercial success despite no big-name actors and very little publicity. It is also up for the best screenplay based on previous material (a short film, directed by Blomkamp called Alive in Joburg) and definitely has the quality to win that as well. Being of the Sci-fi genre, it wouldn’t surprise me if it didn’t win best picture, but I certainly hope that it does.

An Education

Based on the Lynn Barber memoir, An Education is a coming of age story about Jenny, a young school girl from London’s outer suburbs with aspirations to go to Oxford, set sometime in the early 1960s. She begins seeing Dave, an older man who opens her eyes to the grown-up world. The story is simple enough, and the narrative follows the slow revelation of the life of David and his best friend Danny. Danny’s ditzy girlfriend is sometimes a little too ditzy, almost to the point of being jarring, on hearing that Jenny hadn’t done well on a latin test in school, she remarked “Someone told me that in about 50 years, no-one will speak Latin, probably… not even Latin people”.

Other than that constant comic relief threatening to burst the bubble of disbelief, the characters are textured and believable. Alfred Molina is great as Jenny’s father, and Emma Thompson makes a wonderful albeit brief appearance as the principal of Jenny’s school. Carey Mulligan gives a great performance as the main protagonist and the overall coming together of the elements of writing, editing, acting, and cinematography progresses very well and seamlessly throughout the film.

Though thought-provoking in light of what was to come later (e.g. feminism) and the issues that are dealt with, are carried well by the character development. We are encouraged to sympathize with Jenny, and we are drawn into the story which is engaging and well constructed… that is, until the last 10 minutes or so. For some inexplicable reason the whole film seems to fall apart just towards the end, and feels very weak towards the finish. It feels almost as if the film makers stopped trying, and that is a pity. Until then, An Education is a very strong contender for best picture, but due to the lack of punch in the ending, I’m fairly confident that it won’t emerge victorious. Mulligan though, is an outside chance for best actress.

Carey Mulligan in school uniform, getting wet at the side of a road with a cello

The Hurt Locker

As war movies go, this one’s pretty good. Following the story of several members of the bomb squad in Iraq, it captures the tension of the life and death situation well. It is technically a superb movie and could well pick up cinematography, editing, sound editing, and sound mixing, all of which it was nominated for. Unfortunately, as a complete film, I feel it falls short just slightly, but director Kathryn Bigelow (best known for Point Break, who is also nominated for best director along with ex-husband James Cameron) should be very happy with the film.

The film is an extended character study of Sgt William James, played by Jeremy Renner (and played very well I might add). A bomb specialist who seems to delight in the high-tension, high-risk situation of having to disarm the myriad of improvised explosives that the Iraqu insurgents dream up. The tension is very well-captured indeed, although I feel that the overall narrative lets the film down in that it is very episodic. The story moves from one set piece to another with only the faintest of segues. Each set piece is, individually at least, a wonderfully constructed piece of work (I especially liked the one where they get pinned down by a sniper for a whole afternoon), but there isn’t enough of a common thread to unite them all.

If, however, you can ignore the lack of narrative “glue” in this film, it is quite enjoyable and very well-paced. It is gritty in the way that the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan, or most of Black Hawk Down is, and cleverly avoids the realm of the political by focusing on an individual story through his tour of duty. I also have a great respect for the movie because it doesn’t fall into common hollywood traps like “you can’t kill a main character”. This film, just like the war, is indiscriminate about who gets knocked off. It may, despite its deficiencies, win best picture, though I doubt it. Much more likely to win the more technical awards, and is a decent chance for best director.

Inglorious Basterds

This is also one of my more liked films among the nominees. Quentin Tarantino directs a not-quite-historic period-ish film about Nazi-occupied France during the war. Clearly a talented director (and one of my favorites from a stylistic point of view) Tarantino’s films have always seemed a bit incomplete, or perhaps not-quite well-rounded would be a better way to describe what I’m thinking. In any case, Inglorious Basterds is his first very “Complete” film.

A story told quite simply, it is the characters and their development which drive the plot. Engaging dialogue, and charismatic characters keep the viewer glued to the screen throughout its 158 minutes. Unusual for a big hollywood film, a large portion of this dialogue takes place in French and German and is accompanied by subtitles. If you pay careful attention to the subtitles, you will notice that they occasionally (and intentionally) don’t translate what is being said, for example “oui” in French is sometimes subtitled “oui”. This, along with many other subtle signs throughout the film indicate Tarantino’s propensity to quietly mock the film making establishment.

Christopher Waltz, who playes Colonel Hans Landa (the “Jew Hunter”) gives an exceptional performance (speaking four languages quite fluently during the course of the film), and is rightly nominated for the award for best supporting actor. Overall, I wouldn’t mind seeing this one grab the best picture award, although I have a sneaking suspicion that it won’t. Still, a thoroughly enjoyable film, and enjoyable by a very wide demographic owing to the combination of Tarantino’s stylistic action sequences, as well as the more subtle in-jokes about the film industry peppered throughout.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

A moving drama about the car-crash life of poverty and teen pregnancy in modern society (with a bit of incest and sexual abuse thrown in for good measure). Precious traces the story of Precious, an illiterate, overweight teen who is pregnant with her second child by her own father. You would struggle to start out worse in life, but this story is more about hope than anything else, and is ultimately uplifting.

Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’ abusive mother, gives an inspired performance and is my pick for best supporting actress. Even Mariah Carey makes an appearance, and thankfully actually does alright in the role of Ms Weiss (she also doesn’t look anything like she normally does, which helps the suspension of disbelief – and disbelief is what you invariably feel when you see her name on a cast list). In fact, the director, Lee Daniels, deserves a lot of credit for keeping this film together, because with subject material like this, it is all too easy to descend into melodrama and cliches. Instead, the film is gritty, real, and quite confronting.

The editing also deserves a mention, although at times it does seem to “try too hard” and overdo things just a little. Although the film doesn’t have any significant dead-moments where the momentum stops carrying, it also sometimes fails to connect with the audience. Perhaps it is my fault for not being culturally sensitive enough, although having occasionally lived briefly in Harlem (where the film is based) I doubt this is the case. A good movie, not a feel-good movie, and also not a best-picture.

A Serious Man

This was very enjoyable to watch. The Coen brothers do awkward, strange comedy very well, and this is no exception. A very cleverly-written piece about a man whose life is slowly disintegrating around him. The narrative flows almost like a piece of classical music, with central themes and recurring elements popping up and being repeated and reinforced as the story develops, giving the viewer a sense of an impending climax.

Larry Gopnik is a physics professor, and he leads a very happy life with a wife and two kids. He doesn’t really “do” anything, and that is one of the central recurring themes. There is also another interesting recurring theme concerning duality and uncertainty. There are many forks in the story which are almost-but-not-quite revealed (and some that are) but this lack of narrative closure doesn’t detract from the plot. In fact, it is used to enhance it.

A very clever film, and perhaps a little too clever for its own good. Many viewers will find the lack of closure in its various sub-plots confusing and ultimately unsatisfying (blame the current environment of brain-dead instant gratification movies like the unwatchable 2012). It should be a leading contender for the best screenplay written directly for screen category, but I doubt it will win best picture. I wouldn’t mind if it did though.

Up

Up is an unusual story about an explorer who sets out to accomplish the unfinished quest of traveling to “paradise falls” which, in many ways is an exact movie-universe replica of Angel Falls in Canaima, Venezuela (which I happen to have visited once). Of course, not everything goes according to plan, and a boy scout of sorts ends up an accidental passenger on this voyage, which takes place in a house suspended by thousands of balloons and propelled by sails (which doesn’t make sense if you know anything about sailing, but whatever).

Many have been raving about Up, calling it the best Pixar film ever. I disagree, feeling that honour still belongs to Wall-e (the first 50 minutes of it anyway). This film is worth it for the first 10 minutes and the last 5, for reasons that I won’t go into because it would spoil the film but anyone who has seen the film should know what I’m talking about. The rest of the film lacks the emotional gravitas that the bookends at the beginning and the end carry. I think part of the reason I didn’t enjoy the film as much as others is because I failed to connect or sympathize in any way with the character of the kid-boy scout who I found distracting and annoying (which is ironic, because as a child, I was very much like that).

That being said, this is not a bad movie at all. It is entertaining, and deals with (albeit at quite a superficial level) weighty issues like old age, parental neglect, and hero worship. Out of all the pixar movies, this is the one I would most categorize as a “kids film” while most of the others are quite mature films dressed up as kids films. I don’t believe Up is a serious contender for best picture, but should win the best animated feature category.

Up in the Air

Ryan Bingham (played by George Clooney) has the unenviable job of being a man who is hired by other companies to fire people. For this he spends over 300 days of the year on the road, flying from place to place across the US’ extensive air travel network. This film depicts the story of what happens when a “new kid” arrives in the company and changes their practices, effectively grounding him when he is just short of a lifelong goal – a million frequent flyer miles (myself, I am probably just short of 300,000, but those are from much longer, and less frequent trips).

Based on a book, the dialogue is snappy and it is the characters who ultimately bring this story to life. Clooney, along with Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick are all nominated for acting awards and rightly so. Kendrick especially gives a great performance as the young naïve new kid who comes to face the human realities of what it means to actually fire people (apparently she’s in the Twilight series of movies, which seems like a waste of acting talent really). I was not particularly impressed by Clooney’s performance, although his reaction to certain plot twists is very well carried-out. I don’t believe he has a chance in the best actor award being up against the likes of Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) and Morgan Freeman (Invictus).

A fun and very competently executed film. It loses a bit of momentum just towards the end of the second act, but that is mostly to prepare the audience for the third. Kendrick, being very attractive (how else do you get cast for a Twilight movie?) is sometimes distracting in this sense, although it is a welcome reprieve from what is otherwise a very dialogue-driven and cerebral film. I wouldn’t pick it for best picture, but it is a film that I would have no trouble recommending.

George Clooney fires someone while Kendrick looks on

Naturally, on exiting the cinemas, my first words were “we HAVE to do that!”. Sadly, there was the small matter of having to complete a university degree that got in the way of that. Fast forward nine years and a lot has happened (this website is evidence enough of that). Just recently, the Yes Men released another movie, so naturally I had to go and see it.

Like the previous film, “The Yes Men Fix The World” takes the form of a documentary, going behind the scenes of the buildup and aftermath of some of their pranks. The main difference I noticed was the pranks had become “better”. They were certainly bolder, more far-reaching, and more polished in their execution. As before, they were rarely caught in the act, or even suspected.

The first featured prank was one that I was already quite familiar with. I spent some time while I was living in the U.S. involved with students for Bhopal, an organization which works for the “fixing” of the mess that was left after the Bhopal disaster of 1983. For those unfamiliar with this prank, I encourage you to watch the YouTube video of it during which one of the Yes Men, posing as a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, goes live on BBC to announce that Dow will finally clean up its mess.

The backlash from this prank was not entirely positive. Within 20 minutes Dow Chemical contacted BBC and corrected the prank and the BBC had to apologize. In that time, Dow’s stock fell in value by a staggering 2 billion dollars. Interestingly, there was also a backlash from those who ordinarily support the plight of the Bhopalis saying that the prank was cruel because it raised false hopes. While I find this a ridiculous assertion, I can see why someone might think that. I do, however, find it ironic that someone who objects to someone being a fake spokesperson for Dow and misrepresenting Dow’s position on Bhopal, could in the same breath presume to represent the position of a Bhopali.

To their credit, the Yes Men decide to investigate this by doing the obvious thing which is to visit Bhopal and ask the Bhopalis what they thought of the prank. Unsurprisingly, the Bhopalis seemed quite supportive of what the Yes Men did. Here are a group of people who have suffered for over 20 years because of a terrible industrial disaster, and who have basically been ignored by all the people who are supposed to help fix the mess. Now someone pulls a prank which is seen live by over 300,000 people and over the next few days by goodness knows how many, moreover, this prank educates viewers about the fact that the mess still remains. Even if the “good news” turned out to be false, the publicity alone is a huge victory.

The film continues in this vein through more presentations and pranks. Their love for puns and wordplay is appreciated by corporate types as well as myself and their props, as usual, are hilarious in their absurdity. Again and again, the viewer is astonished at just how outlandish the suggestions and presentations can get without any of the attendees at these conferences bat an eyelid. (ok, that’s not quite true, when they lit “vivoleum” candles that smelled of human flesh, a few people got suspicious).

The film suffers many of the problems that plague films of this type in that there is a lack of a strong plot to steer the direction of the film. It wanders from episode to episode often without a particularly strong segue. There are, however, strong themes which recur time and time again. The Yes Men are often accused of lying, to which they retort with an argument along the lines of – “but it isn’t a lie, it’s the truth, it is reality that is being dishonest here”. And that is, in my view, the central thrust of the film – that the reality that we have come to accept is dishonest, and one of the most effective ways of making this point is to present an alternative reality – one which may be a “lie” under certain definitions, but is simply a demonstration of what the world could be.

During a retelling of the episode where they handed out fake copies of the New York Times, I couldn’t help but think of Fidel Castro’s famous line “A better world is possible”. Despite the disjointed nature of the film, I couldn’t help but smile my way through it. It is so refreshing to see a movie about “real life” which is actually optimistic in tone. The pranks are inspirational, and those of you who are sick of the corporate spin and doublespeak will enjoy the refreshing “truth” that the Yes Men’s culture jamming will bring.

Highly recommended, three and a half stars. Screenings begin in the US on October 7

“Do Aye!!” Translated variously as “our cause”, “it is our task”, or “our struggle” is a familiar cry for anyone who has been to a protest on behalf of Burma. I’ve been attending protests like these for about nine years, but the sound of “do aye” (pronounced daw-YAY) has never sent a chill up my spine quite like it did when I heard it being chanted by the monks in this film.

In late August 2007 an uprising began which culminated in massive peaceful demonstrations in the streets of Burma, led by monks, in late September. These protests against the brutal military dictatorship which has existed there since 1962 made world headlines, as did the brutal crackdown which followed. Almost all of the footage that is seen in this documentary was filmed using rudimentary consumer-grade hand-held camcorders and had to be smuggled out of the country. This documentary skillfully and deftly edits the footage and brings it together in a cohesive whole to tell a story that will blow you away.

The story of Burma is a moving one, to say the least, but that is not what this film is about. There are plenty of books and online resources where one can educate oneself about the history of this nation, and her nobel prize-winning leader Aung San Suu Kyi. This is about the here and the now. Even though these events took place almost two years ago, the sense of urgency and immediacy of the events can almost be felt. The sights, always close up and shaky, the sounds always hinting of slight claustrophobia due to the cameras always having to be hidden under jackets and in bags.

As a matter of historical record, the value of this footage is unquestionable. While the military junta turned off the internet and tried very hard to suppress any reports from within the country, a handful of brave reporters from the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), an underground media outlet run by a passionate ragtag gang of journalists who literally risked their lives day in and day out just to tell their story. This is the stuff that journalists dream of, and the events surrounding the Saffron Revolution were the perfect stage. There is even footage of the Japanese journalist who was mortally wounded by a soldier during the crackdown; the very incident which resulted in the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography:

Adrees Latif/Reuters

We follow the plight of a young reporter known only to the viewer as “Joshua” and the narrative is seen through his eyes. Credit must be given to Anders Østergaard, the Danish director who put the footage together to tell his story. The build ups are stirring, and I was struck particularly by one which followed a public announcement that people were no longer allowed to congregate in groups larger than five. A pair of people is seen on a street corner, they are then joined by another, then, after some time, another, all the while the cameraman counts. Eventually then number five is reached, whereupon the small band is overwhelmed by a marching column of hundreds of monks chanting “do aye”.

The brutality of the crackdown is well-documented, and you really feel the air of suspicion that overshadows everything in the day-to-day business of everyday life experienced by everyone. As the protests build up, only to be knocked back down, you really get a sense of how significant every individual act of defiance really is in such an environment, an environment so completely foreign to our own. In light of the recent post-election turmoil in Iran, as well as the show-trial of Aung San Suu Kyi herself, this film brings it home to the viewer, in a very real way that all is not right in the world today.

Admirably, the film does not attempt to gloss over, or hide the violence or brutality that takes place. Some of the scenes are very disturbing, but not inappropriately so – you should be disturbed, the truth IS DISTURBING. Strangely, the most chilling things aren’t the scenes where innocent, peaceful monks are beaten to a pulp, nor even the one where you see the Japanese journalist shot at point blank range. The most chilling moments are after the streets have been cleared, when everything is quiet, when “order” has been restored. The silence is enough to make you cry.

The film ends, as did the protests, on a sombre note. We learn in the closing credits that the headquarters of the DVB were raided and most of the reporters were detained and await trial, expecting to receive life sentences, for the simple crime of wanting to tell the truth. This film serves as a reminder to us all never to take our freedom for granted, and that there is a great deal of work to be done in order to make our world a better place to live.

I was moved. Greatly. Four and a half stars.

While browsing the apple movie trailers website, I happened on a fascinating preview for a feature length documentary on, you’ve guessed it, planet Earth. When I saw this film, I couldn’t help but remark on how timely such a piece could have come, and how conveniently it fits in with the recent content of this website.

The film was actually completed in 2007 and, coincidentally, received its first cinematic release in the Netherlands. Of course, I wasn’t in the Netherlands in 2007, and now that it is 2009, it is no longer playing in cinemas here. Strangely, it was recently released in cinemas in the United States (April 22 – Earth Day) which would also explain why the trailer was on the apple website.

There are two English versions of this documentary and the one I saw was narrated by Patrick Stewart, a.k.a. Jean Luc Picard, captain of the star ship Enterprise. The other version is narrated by James Earl Jones, and that is the version that was released in the US. Regardless, it cannot be understated how much of an impact a powerful voice can be on a nature documentary, as fans of David Attenborough can attest to. From start to finish, Stewart’s voice, like the voice of Saruman draws the viewer in and lends authority to all that is said.

The story line is a simple one, the lives of several different animals are followed in the course of one calendar year, taking the viewer through the different seasons. The journey begins in the arctic with some baby polar bears (there’s nothing like footage of baby animals to make everyone go “awwww”). This differs from many older nature documentaries in that there is a sense of a storyline, albeit a weak one. However, nobody really goes to see a nature documentary for the storyline, and the photography is absolutely stunning.

The footage, and indeed the film as a whole, is a compacted, film-length version of the television series “Planet Earth” and a large portion of the footage is shared. You could be forgiven for asking “why see this in cinemas?”. All the footage is filmed with the latest techniques and simply begs to be seen on a huge screen. Any and all photographers who are reading this review simply MUST see this film.

The message is clear, the balance of the planet’s delicate ecosystems is being unbalanced. Many of the stories, in their own unique way, illustrate how the impacts of climate change affect their lives. In the same way that a picture is worth a thousand words, this film conveys in a way that a thousand essays never could just what is at stake, and what we stand to loose if we fail to act to protect our precious planet.

From the magnificent panoramas, to the revealing time-lapse footage, to the super-slow-motion action shots, all the way to one particularly magnificent aerial shot of Angel falls in Venezuela, this film is one of the most visually stunning films I’ve seen in a long time. Patrick Stewart’s voice adds another dimension of beauty to this multi-layered cake of natural wonder. Although not a particularly challenging film in and of itself, the issues it raises with the preservation of our natural environment is the challenge of our generation.

I loved it. I want to be on the film crew the next time they make one of these. Four stars.

The new Star Trek film is not a standard Star Trek film. While possessing of a wealth of references to older Star Trek canon, it is not a film which requires any amount of prior Star Trek knowledge in order to be enjoyed. Above all else, and I feel that film makers charged with sustaining long-time franchises often forget this, this film is an enjoyable one.

I saw this recently with a group of friends (whose identities I will not reveal to protect their reputations), one of whom had never seen a Star Trek movie nor watched a single episode. Afterwards, while the rest of us avid trek-fans discussed the finer points of how well the young cast had adapted the characters we all knew and loved, the lone non-trek-fan was able to relate that, despite having no foreknowledge of any of the in-jokes (and there were many) he found the film enjoyable.

This film, like many recent releases from studios strapped for ideas, is a prequel and is set in a time period prior to the original series (and after the series “Enterprise”, for those who know what that means). We join Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and friends as young cadets at Star Fleet Academy and learn of how they meet each other and of how their initial meetings eventually shape the eventual crew of the Enterprise. There is even a nod to Gene Roddenberry’s original pilot episode of Star Trek with the inclusion of captain Christopher Pike, as an instructor at Star Fleet and captain of the Enterprise prior to Kirk.

The film opens with an engaging action sequence in which Kirk’s father, then a first-officer, is temporarily promoted to captain when his captain is lost while investigating a mysterious unidentified ship which we later learn is a Romulan mining ship from the future. The use of an element from the future allows the writers to diverge as they wish from many of the restraints they would normally encounter in trying to preserve consistency with the earlier/later episodes in the star trek universe. The ship, predictably, is overwhelmed by the vastly superior firepower of the ship from the future, although Kirk the elder is able to occupy the Romulan ship for long enough for the evacuating shuttle craft to make an escape, during which James T. Kirk is born (and fans can tick off their first checklist item – Kirk being born on a shuttle craft).

Production design is excellent, in that they were able to give a look consistent with the original series yet keep the technology looking more advanced than our current technology, much of which was inspired by the original Star Trek. The look of the bridge of the Enterprise as well as the costumes and the exterior of the Enterprise itself look sufficiently modern, while not being overly retro. Special effects are also brilliant because, while state-of-the-art (the special effects of all Star Trek films were state-of-the-art at the time that they were made), they are delightfully unintrusive and don’t make the common mistake of distracting from the plot.

The plot rolls along nicely and is paced well. J. J. Abrams, a director more well-known for his work in television, and mostly-bad motion pictures, has produced a great product of the storyteller’s art. He deserves special praise because of the peculiar problems of having to tell a story where many elements are generally already known by fans (although the use of alternate realities resulting from time travel is useful here), he instead concentrates on elements which are more important anyway like character development.

In particular, I enjoyed the development of Spock’s character and the way that his human-vulcan duality was played gave the film and his character some depth, which is often lacking in big-budget blockbuster action films. The interactions between Kirk, McCoy, and Spock drive the dialogue and make the characters very real. Their interaction, for me, was one of the best parts of the original series, and the preservation of this as a central element was much appreciated.

The cinematography was very well-done, in particular when it came to exterior space-shots which were filmed in a disoriented, twisting-panning fashion to contrast the simulated-gravity, straight up-down environment of the interior of ships. A friend described the special-effects well “it’s like the original series, but on steroids”. The shot making, as well as the sound editing contributed to a very visceral and intimate feel which further drew the viewer into the universe of the film and suspended disbelief.

It is said that all odd-numbered Star Trek films are pretty average, while the even-numbered ones are good. While this is the 11th in the series, it bucks the trend by being not just a good Star Trek film, but by being a good film, period. At a time when the franchise is struggling after the cancellation of the series “Enterprise” and box office non-success of “Nemesis”, this is what studio execs as well as fans desperately needed. I hope this re-boot of the franchise is the start of a new golden age of Star Trek, or at the very least, the prelude to a few more good Trek films.

Definitely one to see in the cinema environment. Four stars.