Trek It Out

I'm not a trekkie. I remember watching the original "Star Trek" series (in reruns), and enjoying the show, but at that age I liked to watch almost anything on television. Yet "Star Trek" remained in my memory as a unique show of television. I did not like the slew of spin-off series that followed the original in later years. No Captain Kirk? No Spock? No point. And here we are with a movie that has a whole new gang, same as the old gang. But guess what? They pulled it off.

Chris Pine plays William Shatner's Captain Kirk, and he achieves the near impossible by channeling Shatner's pitched braggadocio without going over the top. Zachary Quinto's Spock was perfect. Various actors portraying Spock's Vulcan race, have been boring examples of what is presented as an almost emotionless race. Quinto is brilliant in that he hints at the highly controlled emotion just underneath the surface, especially in that his is a young Spock, having all the more difficulty in dealing with his half human self. Hats off to the director J.J. Abrams also, for keying in on that aspect of Spock. Abrams directing is superb, dynamic, but very little of the "shaky cam" effect that directors have taken to recently to try and impart the feeling of intense action. Instead he moves the storyline along quickly capturing action, but letting the details of both character and spectacular cinematography have their moments.

Directing aside, as good as it was, it was the characters that made the movie work. The casting director not only did an amazing job filling the iconic roles with young actors who could pull them off, but somehow found actors that could generate a similar chemistry to that of which I believed was impossible to recreate. That is the chemistry between the characters Kirk, Spock, and Bones (played brilliantly by Karl Urban). The core three, as I call them, are what made the old Star Trek special, and now the new one. Probably not quite the same, but eerily similar. Plot wise, there were some holes, but nothing that took away from a great movie experience. I'm looking forward to the next trek. Four out of five garlics.

The Not So Incredible Bruce Banner

To quote Kermit the frog, “It’s not easy being green”. Especially if your supposed to be incredible. Marvel comics and Hollywood tried to improve on their disappointing 2003 flick, with "The Incredible Hulk." They made the Hulk greener, meaner, and stronger. The special effects of the movie are really something to marvel at. Edward Norton, better know as Worm from the movie "Rounders", was cast as Bruce Banner. And Betty Ross is played by Liv Tyler,who has all the right looks but lacks screen presence. Maybe next time they can pay one of the CGI guy to digitally create chemistry between Betty and Bruce, since they become so good at doing everything else. Meanwhile the Military hires a Russian assassin, who turns out to have a Napoleon complex and ends up taking a serum that gives him the strength of the Hulk. Although I have to admit that the fight scene is pretty cool but it’s not worth the time that movie spends on trying to make Bruce interesting. You keep waiting for Bruce to say, “You wont like me when I’m angry!” Well Hulk you won’t like it when I’m bored. Chuy smash movie! 2 crushed garlic’s, to the jolly green giant on roids.

Iron Man

When other superheros are defined by the humanity of their secret identity, Iron Man the superhero is the one who gives humanity to his secret identity. Without Iron Man, Tony Stark would be just another spoiled, uncaring rich prick. Iron Man is Starks way to redeem himself. Robert Downey Jr. does a remarkable job in giving Tony Starks a likable personality. Without question, Robert Downey is the superhero of this movie because he saves it from becoming super dull. This movie is filled with fantastic graphics and good thrills, but is made fun by the unique and eccentric performance of Robert Downey Jr. This movie reeks of garlic flavor and it gets 4 out 5 garlics.

A Darker Narnia

It cost me almost seventy bucks to see this movie. No kidding. That's what you get when you got a movie for kids and your the one treating all of them. So what do I get? Well Prince Caspian wasn't boring, but, for the money I thought it should have been a little more boring for an adult.

P.C. is supposed to be PG, (a children's movie), but is plenty violent. Part one didn't have as dark a tone, and I was surprised at the film's direction. The land of Narnia seemed like a place that a kid should stay away from, no matter how many friendly lions are living there. Maybe its just a sign of the times, like movie tickets costing so much. Still, an entertaining flick of fantasy, it gets three out of five garlics.

Who's the Iron Man?

Iron Man. The man of iron, not steel. Superman was never my favorite superhero when I was a kid, I was a Spiderman fan. Ironman was a hero that I knew existed, but besides his cool look, I didn't follow his story.

The movie however, was better than good. The reason? Robert Downey Jr. Yeah. What was Iron Man's real name? Tony Stark? Just a name that now means, Robert Downey Jr. His performance was what, heroic? He made the movie. He was the man, or, in this case, the Iron Man. It gets four out of five garlics

A Good Reason For Gore?

I am moving full steam ahead and am actually writing our second review here at GCR, before Chuy has even written his first! Man, my computer is awesome for not breaking down! Again, this is a movie review, because they're the easiest to squeeze in between other stuff right now. What other stuff? Wouldn't you like to know.

A while back me and Chuy went and saw the movie “300” in the theater. As you probably know, the movie is a take on the ancient Battle of Thermopylae, and is based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller. I went because of the look of the film, though I felt I was chancing a brainless special effects show that would try to dazzle you into enjoyment from the visuals alone. I usually avoid those kinds of movies, especially the ultra-violent kind. It takes more than some blood and guts to get me interested, if you’re going to have blood and guts, there better be a good reason for it explained in a great story. Well, I thought, it is based on a historical event (I hoped), and thus would at least contain an educational element (yeah, I knew it was going to be a gore-fest).

Boy was I wrong! There was more to the title than a historical reference, the movie was 300 times ultra-violent! I knew it was going to be bloody but it was almost unnecessarily so. Heads and body parts were all over the place and close up too. The movie basically boiled down to a visual masterpiece that might have been somewhat better if it had held itself back at some points. Also, of course, “300” did not have the most compelling plot and writing, true of most we-shall-hack-and-slash-our-way-to-glory films. But this was one of those movies that you go to see just because it doesn’t look like anything else you’ve seen before. Except, when I first saw the previews of it I thought it was directed by Robert Rodriguez who directed “Sin City,” so I guess I did see something like it before. Oh well, I should have known better.

I thought “300” was a good film if you like violent, action adventures, where the visuals are the most important feature. I give it three out of five garlics, because I simply prefer a less violent and more story driven film.