X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons

For some reason I haven't been able to get too excited about the Summer movie season so far. I don't know if it's because of lack of time or lack of interest. Maybe a combination of both.

Usually every summer I use the big event movies as an excuse to get together with a large group of friends. We would meet for dinner and then get in line for whatever the big release is for that weekend. Part of the fun was sticking around afterwards and talking about the movie, but mostly it was just about getting together with some friends that I don't get to see too often anymore.

By now we would have met up for four weeks in a row and I would have seen many of the movies already. With so much going on in my life this Summer it just hasn't happened yet. I got to see Star Trek at an early screening so there went that weekend. But the other films haven't really gotten me excited about going to the movies. It's pretty sad really.

This past weekend I played some catch up and I was able to finally see X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Angels & Demons, both sequels, or rather prequels, to some successful Summer blockbusters. This is what to expect these days.

As a kid I was a huge X-Men fan and it's many spin offs, especially X-Factor. I collected all of the comics and I was infatuated with the characters and themes. If there is any comic franchise I hold dear to my heart it would be X-Men.

I thought the first film was good. It was held back with budget restraints that showed with the special effects and action sequences but that allowed the director Bryan Singer to focus more on the characters and tell a story. Ultimately this franchise was about the many characters and themes and it helped the first film. The most iconic character has always been Wolverine and Hugh Jackman's breakout role as the clawed one was perfect casting and he nailed the part and it's what really made the film.

The second film X2 was pretty much perfect. It had a great story and great action along with some wonderful pacing. Singer started to incorporate what I feel is the greatest storyline in the comics; the Phoenix saga. Singer laid down the ground work for what could end up being a fantastic finale. Then things took a quick turn for the worse. Twentieth Century Fox was determined to rush the film without having a finished script, they cut the budget down to save costs, and finally Bryan Singer left the project to jump over to the competition to direct the new Superman film for Warner Bros. Another director came and went and finally Brett Ratner, director of the Rush Hour films, was brought in to make the movie.

It's hard to put the blame on Ratner for the disaster that was X-Men: The Last Stand. The main plot was pretty weak, the special effects were bad, and it was rushed into production before it was ready. Ratner came on board late and had no time to prepare really and made the best of what he could. The character of the Phoenix was done so poorly. She is supposed to be the ultimate power in the Universe and mostly she just stands around looking menacing, not doing too much until it was convenient to move the plot around. It could have been done so much better but Fox wasn't willing to commit the money to do it right, and what they ended up with was a really bad movie that ruined everything Singer had built up in the franchise.

The decision to do Origin stories for the various characters I thought was a good idea. It would allow them to tell more focused stories on the characters we really care about, and who better to start off with than Wolverine. I had really high hopes for this film, as I'm sure many others did as well. This was a chance for Fox to in a sense redo the last film and bring proper closure, even if it serves as a prequel. Initial reaction to the film has been pretty bad with some horrible reviews so I went into the movie a little timid and worried I was going to see a train wreck.

Now the movie is no X2 but it's really not as bad as many have been making it out to be. I actually really enjoyed it. I have some serious problems with choices they made in the story but that really didn't totally ruin the movie for me like it has for some.

The basic premise of the story is to show how James Logan became Weapon X, or Wolverine. We see that he is really about 150 years old and doesn't age because of his healing mutant powers, he has fought in several wars, and became part of an elite group of mutants that did some bad things before he turned his back on them to try and lead a normal life. Of course that can't happen, he gets dragged back in and all hell breaks loose.

Now I'm no expert in the history and legend of the source character but I do know some basic things. I know that Wolverine's arch nemesis has always been Sabretooth, played in this film by Liev Schreiber, but I didn't know they were brothers. I'm not sure if that is actually true or not, but even if it isn't it did add a certain level of conflict that did help the story. The constant back and forth between the two characters was the best part of the movie. They had a really complex relationship that left them at odds and made for some great moments, not only between the characters in dialogue but also in the action sequences. It was a wonderful dynamic that worked.

I also know that Wolverine was experimented on and that the government covered his bones in the adamantium metal to make him indestructible and they gave him his metal claws. The addition of the bone claws was silly and unnecessary. They looked like bad special effects and were never really used effectively. It would have been better for him to just have them added and have him trying to adjust to his new claws, which they ended up doing in a few funny scenes of him trying to figure them out and doing damage to a room instead. Also part of the operation lead to him having amnesia but since they chose to do the operation early on they left him with his memory and chose a pretty ridiculous way to make sure he lost his memory at the end of the film to keep in line with the timeline. The way they did it felt tacked on and forced. There must have been a better way to do it, but oh well.

The other thing I didn't like was the addition of so many other mutants, it felt like another X-Men film rather than just a Wolverine film. Most of the other characters they showed didn't really do much for the story but it was a way for the film makers to nod to the fans and say "look, here's Gambit!" Especially throwing in Cyclops wasn't necessary at all, it was just distracting. They should have kept it focused on Wolverine, Sabretooth, and Stryker and they could have told a really good and exciting story.

Despite all of my major complaints with the movie, I did actually enjoy it for what it is. Most Summer films are just mindless popcorn fun, and if you go in expecting that then you will be satisfied. As a long time lover of the franchise I just hope for a little more. Maybe because my expectations were dropped so low after all of the early reviews I ended up liking it more, but it was fine for what it is.

As for Angels & Demons I didn't have as much attachment to go on so I went in to the film pretty blind and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

I read The Da Vinci Code the summer before the film came out. It was a quick read and a fun adventure story along the lines of Indiana Jones or National Treasure. I love a good conspiracy, especially anything involving the church, so the subject matter was right up my alley.

I enjoyed the movie version of The Da Vinci Code but it felt a bit too clunky and forced at times. Some of the dialogue was campy, as was some of the acting despite a top notch cast, but they made it work. It was a fun puzzle to solve and took some ancient myths and added a new twist in an interesting way.

I never got around to reading the book Angels & Demons so I didn't really know what the story was about, but I knew the process was similar to The Da Vinci Code and I knew that it was also a prequel. The stories really do stand alone so it wasn't necessary to film them in any particular order. It's like a James Bond story, the character and formula are the same you just plug in the particular details.

Tom Hanks returns again as symbolist Robert Langdon who is brought to the Vatican to help with an urgent case. The Pope has died and the Bishops are about to meet for the conclave to select the next Pope, but four of the leading candidates are kidnapped and clues are left by an assassin claiming to be from the Illuminati, a group of scientist wiped out centuries ago by the church because their beliefs contradicted religion's laws. They have returned to exact their revenge and expose the truths of the church. Langdon must follow the symbols and clues to save the Bishops before a bomb of antimatter is detonated and destroys the Vatican and thousands of people.

There are parts of the story that are kind of far fetched, like a bomb of antimatter. It's a clever plot device that adds a sense of danger but you must suspend all disbelief in order to go with it since it's not possible yet to make that small amount of antimatter, or to even carry it around in a canister for that matter. I have no problem doing that, but when trying to instill some historic facts to the history of the Illuminati and add weight to their dispute with the church the bomb becomes a bit distracting. It takes away from the truth of the historic facts that are often buried in most teachings. The church has a history of doing some pretty nasty and out right evil things in order to further it's cause and gain followers. The real history of the California Missions is often left out so that the good of spreading the word of the Bible can be glamorized while the atrocities of the way people were forced to convert is buried and forgotten. During the time period the film refers to of the Illuminati being wiped out, many scientists or free thinkers who questioned the laws of the church were often silenced by unpleasant means. The Middle ages is often referred to as the Dark age for reasons of the horrible things that were being done across Europe as the word of God was being spread and people forced to convert. It's a period of our history that never gets fully taught but fascinates me and has caused some serious questions of not only my own faith but my thoughts on organized religion in general. Does it do more good than bad? Who is in the right in this film? Are the Illuminati, whether real or not, in the right to exact revenge and does the church have a right to defend itself or keep this silent?

These topics are hinted at throughout the story but it mostly takes a back seat to the action and mystery at hand. In a way it works for the film. The Da Vinci Code was full of so much history, myth, and theories that it often weighed down the plot, even though it was fascinating information. The story and dialogue often felt bogged down in so much information that it didn't flow that well. It worked great on the written page but not so much in a two hour film. Angels & Demons had a better flow to the pacing. The plot didn't feel overwhelmed by trying to deliver too much of the mythology, but enough was given to help give purpose and meaning to the situation and characters. I'm sure there may be more information in the book, at least I hope there is, but enough was cut out to make the plot and story work well.

The time constraints of the characters helped enhance the tension and conflict and the suspense was well done. No time was wasted in exposition of the characters. What we needed to know we were able to discover along the journey so that the business of trying to save the Bishops could be gotten to right away. There was a good balance of action and quiet character moments and neither seemed to slow down the pace of the film at all. I did feel that the true threat behind the conspiracy was a bit predictable but it was also handled well enough to give me moments of doubt, but ultimately I knew who was behind the whole thing. That really didn't bother me though because the motives behind it all wasn't as obvious and it still left some mystery to the validity of the history between the church and the Illuminati.

Despite any quarrels I may have with the separation between history and fantasy that are mixed in this film, I totally understand it's a work of fiction and meant more to entertain rather than to educate. On that level this film succeeds. It's a good thriller with plenty of suspense and action mixed together nicely. The theme of religion and science being able to coexist and work together to educate is a worthy idea that needs to be explored more seriously in our culture. There are plenty of ideas expressed in the subtext of the story that peek my curiosity and invite me to further explore the history and mythology behind the plot. I hope it will encourage others to investigate the ideas and themes present in the film so that you can educate yourselves on the history and decide for yourselves what to believe. Like is suggested in the film, it really doesn't hurt to try and accept both ideas.

Overall I really enjoyed the film. There was some fascinating history given about the church, just as in The Da Vinci Code, but the plot seemed more dire and suspenseful in Angels & Demons. It's a good mystery and action film, just what you would expect from a Summer popcorn flick.

So I'm not really disappointed with what I've seen so far this Summer, but I'm also not blown away by anything. So far I would highly recommend Star Trek and The Brothers Bloom. I'm going to try and see Terminator this week and then I'll see if I can keep myself caught up. I highly doubt it, but it doesn't hurt to try. So leave me some feedback, what are your favorite Summer films so far? Is there maybe a small indie film I should check out? Until next time...

My 100 Favorite Films Part 2: #81-90

I'm back with the next group of ten films from my 100 favorite films of all time. Sorry that it has taken me so long to get this up. I hope that you are enjoying reading these articles and I'll try to get them up quicker.

Before we get into it, let's review the list so far.

100) His Girl Friday
99) 2001: A Space Odyssey
98) Adaptation
97) Being John Malkovich
96) Groundhog Day
95) Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
94) Boogie Nights
93) Apocalypse Now
92) Barton Fink
91) The Big Lebowski

Let's just jump right back into it shall we.

90) Breathless (1960)


One of the first films in the French New Wave movement and an important film that helped influence a whole new generation of filmmakers.

Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut both put their theories to work when they made their first films that started the New Wave movement. Where The 400 Blows is a more personal story to Truffaut, Godard is more style with his first film Breathless.

The story is simple. Michel, played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, kills an officer and needs go on the run, but first he must convince the girl Patricia, played by Jean Seberg, to come with him. There is lots of sexual tension between them that delays any action on Michel's part.

Godard takes the camera into the street to shoot on real locations. He uses lots of long takes and jump cuts to let the actors tell the story. It's a fun movie that detours from typical Hollywood film making of the time and introduces new techniques that seem only natural today. I'm just now starting to discover many of the films from the French New Wave and so far I'm hooked, just as those were who went on to change Hollywood.

#89) Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

A fun western that works for so many different reasons, but mostly because of the chemistry between it's stars Robert Redford and Paul Newman. The banter between these two, with lots of help from William Goldman's script, is extremely funny and you can't help but root for these two outlaws.

Butch and Sundance are bank robbers finding it hard to adapt to a changing time. As they are hunted down they go on the run and relocate to Bolivia to try to start over, but as is usually the case, they can't deny their true calling in life. The cinematography is beautifully photographed by the great Conrad Hall. It's not a typical western by any means, but it's just a fun and entertaining film. Makes me wish Newman and Redford had made more than two films together because their chemistry shines on the screen.

#88) Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)



Nobody writes dialogue quite like David Mamet. Based on his own play, the film is a hard look at the pressure of working in a competitive sales office where closing the deal is everything.

The film has a great cast, including Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Jack Lemmon, and Kevin Spacey. The banter between the characters is written with a certain rhythm that is quick and hard hitting. Dialogue is everything in a Mamet piece. The characters are defined by their speech and nothing is held back in the language. The movie is a wonderful example of what great actors are capable of when given good characters and dialogue to work with.

#87) Apollo 13 (1995)


I have a thing for space travel. Long ago in my youth I wanted to be an astronomer or do something that required working for NASA. Then I realised how much studying that would take and there went that idea. But within that same passion I have a particular fondness for this Ron Howard film.

The movie tells the story of the Apollo mission where everything that could go wrong did. Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, Bill Paxton, Gary Sinise, and Ed Harris give great natural performances that bring life to these real people and it draws you into the story. Helping their performances is the use of in camera special effects that helps create a sense of realism that adds authenticity to the movie. They used a special free fall technique in real aircraft's that created short moments of weightlessness for the actors so that they really are floating, no strings attached. It's the little details like this that make the film work. Even though you know the outcome there is real tension and suspense that makes the movie really entertaining. It's just a great heroic story.

#86) Rashomon (1950)


A classic tale from the master Akira Kurosawa. The movie is about a murder and the trial to figure out who did it. We see the incident over and over again from the various points of view from those involved, including the victim's ghost.

Nonlinear story telling had been done before this film in such classics as Citizen Kane, but not to this extent. In Citizen Kane we see various points of the character's life told from differing points of views, but in Rashomon we see the same incident from different points of view. It's a strong example of the influence our own perspectives and experiences has on events in our life. Nobody sees things the same way, just like nobody interprets a film or song the same way.

It's also a strong example on the ways films can tell stories. The plot does not have to be a straight A to B linear story, but structure can be changed to add dramatic effect. It's a style that has been imitated and borrowed for such films as Pulp Fiction, Run Lola Run, and Vantage Point. It's an important film from one of the all time greats of cinema.

#85) Pink Floyd's The Wall (1982)


When I was in the sixth grade one of my brother's friends was playing the tape of The Wall in his car and I was captivated. I made a copy of it for myself and listened to it nonstop for several months straight. My taste in music was changed forever.

The power of the film lies in the strength of the music from which it is based. The album tells a story of isolation and eventual madness, withdrawing oneself from those around you until you are trapped by your own fears and anger. The metaphor for these feelings are played out in the film by Bob Geldof who plays the main character of Pink, a troubled rock star who becomes more and more withdrawn, building an internal wall around himself to shut the world out. His descent within his mind is portrayed through the animation in the film. The odd and abstract characters help to bring to life Pink's own internal demons. It is ultimately a tale of great sadness as there appears to be no help for Pink. It's a feeling of loneliness that I'm sure we have all felt at some points in our lives when you feel completely helpless and the only way to get out of it is to shut everyone else out. I know it's something I have felt and have been able to relate to.

Director Alan Parker brings great pacing and gets a strong performance from Geldof. As wonderful as the movie looks, it is the music that is the strength of the film. Two different mediums, music and film, blend perfectly to make a thoroughly enjoying and meaningful movie.

#84) The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)


Clint Eastwood's westerns have always had a different feel to them than more traditional westerns. There is a bit more darkness to the characters rather than the heroic types that John Wayne perfected. Of all of Eastwood's westerns, this is one of my favorites.

Eastwood plays a Missouri farmer who's family is murdered by Union soldiers. He goes on the run with some former Confederate fighters before exacting his own revenge against the murderers of his family. There are plenty of good shoot out scenes and the obligatory Eastwood one liners he deals out before opening a can of whoop ass on his enemies. There are hints of the character traits that made Dirty Harry so intimidating and dangerous. It's a fun dark western that was a good precursor to Eastwood's more successful Unforgiven.

#83) Rope (1948)


One of the greats yet under appreciated films from the master of suspense Alfred Hitchcock. It's a bit more style over substance but the technical aspects of the film are totally appropriate and help to enhance the story.

Two young men strangle one of their other friends and hide his body in their apartment just before the victim's friends and family come over for a dinner party. They wish to challenge the perfection of their crime by proving they could not only get away with it but do it right under every one's nose. At the dinner party is a former professor played by James Stewart who grows suspicious of the two men and weary that the victim is not present. The story becomes a chess match between Stewart and the two men to see who can out wit the other.

Hitchcock chose two important film and story techniques to help add to the suspense. The movie is done in real time, which means that the amount of time in the story that passes is the exact amount of time the movie runs. Doing this puts the viewer in a time restraint and you are left to wonder who will out duel who before time is up. It's a clever technique to increase the suspense. Hitchcock adds to this by also filming the movie in one single shot. We are forced with only one perspective by the wandering camera throughout the party. There is no closeups or quick cuts to trick us into when we should be feeling tense. We are observers and it is the story and characters left on their own to thrill us. It's a clever technique that never really feels showy. With today's ability to shoot digital it would be easier to film one long uncut shot, but on film you can only get about ten minutes worth of footage before you need to change the reel. Hitchcock got away with this by picking certain moments where the camera would move and do things like focusing in on the back of a character as they walked, cut, and pull out with a new reel so that it feels seamless. You can catch the cuts and changes if you pay attention. It was something new and different and only something that Hitchcock could pull off. It works for the story and is truly inventive and unique and helps make the movie much more suspenseful. It's not one of his films talked about often but it's really one of his many hidden gems.

#82) Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)


George Clooney suffers no sophomore slump in his second film as a director. Clooney not only directs and costars but he also takes on writing duties in this relevant film about an important phase of our country's history.

David Strathairn plays journalist Edward Murrow who during the 1950's took on Senator Joseph McCarthy and his communist witch hunt. In a time when it was unpopular to speak out and express your opinion against something like he did was very risky but important in maintaining not only our freedoms but our sanity. The country was so crazed over the threat of communist infiltration that anyone who did not agree with the status quo was labeled communist and wrongly shun from society. Several people lost their jobs and lives were ruined for having any hint of a connection to communist ideals and sympathy towards those who were punished. Murrow stood up to the bullying Senator and not only called him out but also the American people, basically saying that we as a nation are better than this and the moment we let fear guide our decisions then all is lost.

The film and it's subject matter are just as important today as it was when Murrow was first reporting on McCarthy. At the time of the Iraq occupation it was extremely harmful for one to oppose the war and the actions of the administration. You were considered un-American or a terrorist if you disagreed with the action. People let themselves be manipulated by fear mongering and let themselves be duped rather than looking at the matters logically. We live in a time where nobody wants to think for themselves but are more comfortable being told what to feel or who to hate or who to fear. This is dangerous and can be detrimental to the success and future of our country. This film reminds us that we must question and stand up to our leaders and always back that which is morally right and just, whether the sentiment is popular or not. We must learn from our history, not repeat it.

#81) The Wild Bunch (1969)

I feel this Sam Peckinpah western is just as important a film in the transition from old Hollywood to the new Hollywood as Bonnie and Clyde is. It stands as a symbol of change from the old standards to the new edgier style.

The movie is about a gang of old outlaws, lead by William Holden, who are looking for one last big score. Their ways of doing things are no longer viable as the old west has changed and grown more sophisticated for their standards. They are no longer able to adapt and find that the world has passed them by. Rather than let it slip away they go for one last big score that could change everything for them.

Just as the old west has changed for these characters, old Hollywood standards changed as well and The Wild Bunch attacked the traditional sense of the western head on. In this film people that got shot actually bleed out. There was much more violence shown on screen than had ever been done in any John Wayne western. The main characters weren't exactly the prototypical western heroes either. They were bad and ruthless men, a sort of anti hero that thumbed it's nose at the establishment. It helped wave in a new era of protagonists that were not typical role models. A new darker and edgier type of story telling was happening in Hollywood and this film helped lead the charge into a new era.

That wraps up this group of films. I'll begin work on the next set right away and try to get that posted as soon as possible. And as always, thanks for reading. Until next time...

Star Trek

Growing up there were two kinds of science fiction fans: Star Wars fans and Star Trek fans.

I'm not sure why the two always seem to be at odds. It's possible to like both, in fact I know people that do. But there has always been a comparison between the two which is a bit unfair. Both have completely different mythologies and styles. The fact that they are in outer space is about the only thing in common between these two franchises.

Personally, I've always preferred Star Wars. I grew up on those movies, playing with the toys and collecting anything I could get my hands on. I never watched any of the various Star Trek television shows. I think I liked maybe half of the movies that have come out. The characters always seemed to be cartoonish to me and no real depth to them. I think that is probably because they have been parodied and lampooned so many times it's hard to separate that from the original source.

Star Wars was always more focused on the spiritual mythology involved with the force and more importantly the journey of the characters of Luke and his father. George Lucas has said what a heavy influence the work of Joseph Campbell has had on his writing for the saga. Lucas borrows heavily from the Hero's Journey that Campbell plotted out that is engraved in just about all of mythology and fables. The structure of the large story that Star Wars tells has always been more appealing to me from a literary perspective. None of that was ever apparent in the Star Trek series for me.

Star Trek was first and foremost a television show. It was designed to be episodic. There was a series of adventures that would be solved each week, and really in each movie, but no real ongoing journey or emotional arc for the characters to grow and advance in. They stayed the same and served the various stories laid out each week. Each character had their own unique traits that made them likable and memorable, but there was never really anything at stake individually for them.

The movies I prefer the most in the series are The Wrath of Khan, The Search for Spock, and The Voyage Home. These three movies are the closest the series came to a so-called trilogy. It was a continuing story that showed true evolution of the characters, especially the relationship between Spock and Kirk. There was a sense of mythology being created that followed Campbell's hero structure with the sacrifice and death of Spock and his eventual resurrection. The formula for the Hero's Journey is something that has worked throughout human history and has always made for good storytelling.

After the failure of the Star Wars reboot I was a bit hesitant when a re-imagining of Star Trek was announced. Like I've said, I was never a big fan to begin with but I had hopes for a good movie, especially when J.J. Abrams was attached. I wasn't so sure about the casting but I decided to reserve judgement and have faith that Abrams could deliver a good movie since I've liked pretty much everything else he has been involved with.

This past Saturday I got to see an advance screening of Star Trek and I am happy to say that the movie was fantastic and it blew me away.

For the first time we get to see some back story of how the characters got involved in the Federation and eventually teamed together aboard the Enterprise. The danger in starting over with a franchise like this is that there are decades of history that has been told for these characters and this universe in general. All of the die hard fans know the back story even though it was never shown in any of the films before. If the filmmakers make any slight changes it could throw the entire universe into upheaval for the fans and ruin any time lines that have already been set and told. Essentially that is what this story is all about.

The movie opens with a Romulan ship coming through a time warp and attacking a Star Fleet ship looking for Ambassador Spock. Nobody on the ship has heard of Spock since at this time he is just a child and many years away from joining the Federation. The Romulan ship attacks and destroys the Federation ship, but not before a heroic George Kirk can safely evacuate hundreds on board, including his wife and newborn son James, and then sacrificing his own life to save the others. This act changes history right away, thus creating a new alternate reality time line for our future characters of the Enterprise. Nothing will be how it once was because history has been changed. This plot device allows the filmmakers to have free reign of the universe and tell any story they want to now. What has happened previously in the different television shows and movies can still happen because what we are seeing and what we will probably see in future sequels will be happening along an alternate time line. I've been reading that this has been upsetting some of the faithful fans but I think it's pretty genius on their part and it works just fine.

The real success of this movie lies with the cast. Everyone has some pretty large shoes to fill in playing several iconic characters. First and foremost is Chris Pine who plays Captain Kirk. The heart and soul of the character is present but Pine finds a way to make Kirk his own. He seems a bit more brash and cocky than the version played by William Shatner. He's not better or worse, just different yet still appealing and charismatic which is essential to making this film work. He plays the character with a certain level of cool and self assurance and he brings another level of confidence in his leadership. I felt that Pine was great in the roll and filled the void left by Shatner just fine.

Zachary Quinto gets the honor of wearing the pointy ears and playing the key role of Spock. He definitely has the look but I feared I would only see him as Sylar, his character from Heroes. I don't feel he owned the character quite like Leonard Nimoy did previously and he didn't do anything to make the character his own. If anything it felt more like an impersonation, which actually turns out just fine because of the presence of another certain actor in the film which I don't think is any big secret but I still don't want to give it away. Quinto was believable enough as the character to make it work.

The rest of the crew just had small moments and nothing to really make them shine. Karl Urban, who plays Leonard "Bones" McCoy comes the closest to offering an impersonation like Quinto has done, but it really didn't bother me. He was funny and believable in his limited role. Simon Pegg, who plays Scotty, had some memorable moments and made the character more his own, similar to Pine's performance. The rest of the crew had little to do other than helping to set up their stories and characters for any future sequels which will hopefully have them more involved. They were all fine in their limited screen time.

If there was anything I would have liked to have seen done different in this movie is for it to be longer and maybe some more action. The pacing is really quick and fluid. There is a lot of setting up and story telling which was really engaging and entertaining. There are plenty of well shot and choreographed action scenes but I think there could have been more. But I'm just being nit picky on this area.

The movie was really fast paced and exciting and I think it has done a good job of setting up the characters and universe for future installments. The producers have an opportunity to take this franchise in a whole new direction and create a new mythology for a new generation while giving the old fans more of what they want which is more adventures of the Enterprise. For a big Summer blockbuster movie Star Trek has lots of laughs, good characters and acting, and plenty of explosions and stunts to keep you entertained. Of all of the movies that have come before this one in the series this is probably my favorite. I hope they can keep the talent together and tell us some exciting stories in the future, because for once in the long storied history of this franchise I would consider myself a fan.

Star Trek opens on Friday, May 8. This could be one of the more successful films this summer. I don't think you will be disappointed.