Star Trek (2009)

Hold on to your tribbles, Trekkies! Wunderkind sci-fi/fantasy director JJ Abrams injects new life into what long ago became a tired franchise by staying true to the show’s spirit. Abrams boldly goes where no Star Trek director has gone before, inviting hard-core and casual fans alike to take a leap of faith and buy in to a rebooted Star Trek universe.

In a fit of rage, the revenge-hungry Romulan Captain Nero (Eric Bana) inadvertently follows Spock (Leonard Nimoy) through a rift in space-time and into a parallel universe. One outcome of this journey is the killing of James Tiberius Kirk’s father, creating a timeline unlike the one Nero and Spock originate from. Kirk (Chris Pine) grows up a rebel but enlists in Starfleet Academy, where he meets a younger Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saladana), Sulu (John Cho), and McCoy (Karl Urban). Far from a cohesive team, the young cadets are thrust into action when Nero re-emerges, threatening the existence of the planet Vulcan and, potentially, any Federation planet he chooses.

This film is unlike any other Star Trek film in that it places hefty emphasis on special effects and action sequences, which were either poorly done or in short supply in the 10 predecessors. Some long-time Trek fans may cry foul over pushing the contemplative side of the series to the back burner but even they should recognize just how bold a move Abrams and company make. They should also be glad that this reboot breathes precious life into a series that is approaching its 50th anniversary.

The characters of the Original Series are, naturally, the most beloved (though Next Generation boasts an almost equal amount of loyalty). Recasting the original crew for further exploits between the end of the Original Series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture or between Star Trek 6 and Generations wouldn’t work save for satisfying the curiosities of a minority of Trekkies. There’s nothing new about inserting a story in front of a known outcome. By creating an alternate timeline, old characters can develop in new ways and everyone becomes vulnerable to the dangers taking place around them. Maybe we don’t fear for the safety of Kirk or Spock that much but everyone else is fair game. As an added bonus, this film in no way retcons anything Trek fans hold sacred. The Star Trek they grew up with still exists.

The reboot makes Kirk a more interesting character, now a hot-headed recruit that can grow into Shatner’s more even-keeled captain. The change is fun to watch because it leads to freshness in character interactions. Gone is the camaraderie of our main characters. Instead of mutual respect, some behave adversarially to each other. Thankfully, every member of the cast is up to the task of re-making these iconic characters. The chemistry is phenomenal, though I do think Karl Urban overdoes it as McCoy.

One thing the previous Star Trek films were shaky on was their antagonists. While sci-fi is full of larger-than-life villains, Star Trek films are notoriously lacking in compelling bad guys. In this film, Nero is full of fire and menace but he rarely shows other emotions. He is certainly powerful and formidable but he is narrow-mindedness makes him a fairly flat character. It would have been interesting to see him outside of his quest to destroy things.

The reboot itself may make this film something of a one-trick pony but Star Trek does pretty well as an origin story. For the uninitiated, this film is a tense, action-packed sci-fi flick. For those familiar with the source material, it is a bold move that enables future endeavors as favorite characters discover their galaxy all over again. The filmmakers put plenty of references to Original Series elements in this film for long-time fans to snicker at. This is fine for this first outing but Star Trek is worthy of a sequel, which means future installments will need to tell their own stories rather than piggyback on parallels to what came before. If they can pull that off, the reboot will have been worth it.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5

Avatar* (2009)

This is it- the biggest movie of all time! Boasting one of the largest budgets in film history, a legion of devoted fans, revolutionary 3-D technology and (as if I could forget) the highest box-office gross of all time. There’s no doubt about it- films don’t get much bigger than James Cameron’s Avatar. But is it really one of the greatest films of all time? Is this sci-fi adventure and the technological wizardry behind it really, as some have proclaimed, the future of film?

Set 150 years in the future, Avatar is the story of a paraplegic soldier’s chance at redemption. Jake Sully’s recently-murdered twin brother was to be part of a special mission to the Alpha Centauri star system. His brother was a scientist preparing to travel to the moon Pandora, where he would use a remote mental link to operate the body of a native creature (known as the Na’vi) specifically designed to mesh with his mind. Rather than lose out on the millions of dollars it cost to produce the Na’vi avatar body, the RDA Corporation, who are funding the project to help smooth over relations with the natives while mining for a precious mineral, hires Jake as a replacement.

After arriving on Pandora, Jake is faced with conflicting motives. Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) finds him an inadequate replacement for his brilliant scientist brother. The head of RDA’s security force and the company on-site administrator see him as a chance to gather valuable information on the Na’vi. They promise to fund an expensive surgery to restore Jake’s legs if he’ll report to them regularly on the natives. The largest deposit of the valuable mineral is located underneath a giant tree the Na’vi use as their home. RDA wants access to the deposit without starting a war that will turn off stockholders. All plans go awry when Jake is separated from the team on his first outing. Attacked by vicious, wild animals, Jake is saved by the Na’vi. Initially wary to his presence, they grow to accept him and Jake grows to sympathize with his new-found, blue-skinned friends.

James Cameron spent years both developing the kind of 3-D filmmaking equipment he wanted and waiting for CGI technology to advance to the point he needed in order to make Avatar a fully-realized product. Cameron’s patience and innovation are quite possibly unparalleled and they pay off gloriously in terms of technical achievement. Instead of using 3-D to throw stuff out of the screen at the audience, Cameron uses it to add miles of depth to the background. Yes, a few things pop out at you but Cameron never uses it purely as a gimmick.

The flora and fauna of Pandora are impressive. Cameron fills his world with lush vegetation that looks fantastic by day and mesmerizing by night. The animal life is creative, though some of the creatures have features that don’t seem to make sense for such a dense jungle setting. On the whole though, Pandora is a feast for the eyes. Even the Na’vi are impressive and the use of motion capture really brings each character to life. The only times the technology really betrays Cameron’s intents are when human characters are digitally constructed and when characters or creatures move quickly off the screen. In the case of the latter, I am not sure if the blurriness I saw was something that plagued all screenings or if the 3-D projectors being used in the theater I went to simply weren’t the best on the market.

As impressive as Cameron’s blitzkrieg of effects on your eyes may be, the fact that most of this world is artificial kept me from drinking the Kool-Aid and joining the shameless masses of Avatar devotees amusingly called ‘avatards.’ You can throw all the special effects and CGI you want on the screen but the simple fact remains that, in stories involving flesh-and-blood people (or in this case humanoids), there is just no substitution for the real thing. Sure, all the characters’ movements were plotted and performed by real people but it’s harder to care about them when they are ‘painted’ over by computer effects. It’s difficult to put into words but there is some kind of visceral quality lost in the translation that is motion capture.

Another key ingredient that Avatar lacks is a unique and compelling story. You’ve heard plenty of people call this movie a hybrid of a number of films- Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, Fern Gully, etc. It seems that the deeper you root into sci-fi, the more borrowed elements you will find in Avatar. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s extremely difficult to make a film anymore without borrowing or paying homage to what has come before in your particular genre. The problem here is that the ‘going native’ narrative has been done enough times that it is extremely predictable. Even if you never saw the original theatrical trailer that gave away every major plot point in chronological order, you never have much doubt as to what is going to happen.

This brings me to the crux of the matter- Avatar is not the future of film. A technical bonanza, yes; the future of film, no. Here’s why: the 3-D technology Cameron created improves the movie-going experience without actually improving the movie itself. It’s really cool to look miles beyond the edge of the movie screen but it’s not an essential element to telling the story. It’s just an extra ingredient to make the theater experience a little more special. Think about it- stripped of its 3-D effects, Avatar is just an environmentalist action movie with good computer animation. Until a film actually needs to utilize the third dimension for story purposes, 3-D is still technically just a gimmick (albeit a revamped and smartly-employed one).

Avatar could have very easily been made without all the whiz-bang technology James Cameron slaved over but I seriously doubt that it would have been received in the same way. He had a story that he wanted to tell and he knew he needed massive amounts of CGI to do it. Cameron also knew that computer animated films are a dime a dozen anymore so he decided to step up the game a notch or two. The story and characters aren’t the main attraction here. It’s really an advertisement for the next generation of CGI and motion capture technology. Cameron is offering us a new way for films to be made. Will all films need 3-D? Certainly not. But when a film comes along that deserves the 3-D treatment, it’s a safe bet that it will be worth getting lost in.

Don’t get me wrong- Avatar is still a good film. Over-hyped, but good. It wears its politics on it sleeves, which might aide in winning or losing you depending on your ideology, but most of that can be shrugged off for the sake of taking in a colorful action movie. And let’s face it- when it comes to action, James Cameron is one of the best in the business.

Repeat viewings won’t be able to recapture all of the magic (at least not until everyone has 3-D TV’s) because Avatar was meant to be seen in 3-D. If you didn’t see it in 3-D, you missed out. But fear not! Cameron is currently planning two sequels, so there will be future opportunities to see his creation in all its glory.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5