Puzzleology

Star Trek to me was one of those series that was so niche — a whole universe that required hours of dedication to get into and appreciate. Yet everyone I have talked to who has seen Star Trek, trekkies and non-trekkies alike, have recommended that I watch it. I’m glad that I listened to them.

The new movie brings Star Trek the franchise into the mainstream. It turned a geeky, sci-fi series into an entertaining, epic story, complete with good actors and gorgeous visual effects.

To someone who knew only the trademark opening line, I found the story easy to understand. Every good story needs a powerful conflict. Usually when preexisting universes first make their way onto the big screen, this conflict is drawn from the well-known arch enemy of the protagonists. X-men had Magneto. Transformers had Megatron. Batman had the Joker (the 1989 version). But Star Trek doesn’t seem to have a overarching enemy, and even if it did, how many have heard of it? The Klingons, maybe? As it turns out, it doesn’t matter. This movie builds up its own conflict, worthy of the two hour length, and resolves it in a very clever turn of events. It’s a clean resolution, one that doesn’t leave the audience anticipating a sequel, which is good. But it doesn’t eliminate the possibility either, which is better. I prefer those kinds of endings.

Notice I didn’t say that the movie built up it’s own villain. One thing that I did find lacking in the movie, was character development. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with a lot of people that you didn’t really need to know anything about the old Star Trek to get to know the characters and the plot. However, I felt that the only characters developed in the film were Captain Kirk and Spock. Everyone else, including the villain, felt like cameo appearances. Maybe that was the point. After all, a lot of the story emphasized the budding relationship between Kirk and Spock in a parallel universe where they start off annoyed with each other. But still, I would have liked to learn more about Chekov, Sulu, Scotty, and McCoy. The latter we learned a bit about as he went through Starfleet Academy with Kirk, but he had faded into the background by the middle.

Another element I found odd was the relationship between Spock and Uhura. I believe it was there to illustrate the human side of Spock and his ability to love, but the relationship seemed unnatural and simply a plot device. I think it would have been better to leave Spock single.

Still, there isn’t much to complain about with this film. The story had just the right amount of everything: some action, some suspense, some drama, some humor, some thought provoking questions, and even some blasts to the past.

One final note. I never thought I could see Zachary Quinto as someone other than Sylar. Now I can.

I actually learned about the existence of this movie an hour before I watched it, and knew very little about the plot. Thus, I went into it with few expectations, except that it was a Clint Eastwood movie. I was pleasantly surprised.

Four years after Million Dollar Baby, Clint Eastwood delivers another outstanding, emotionally touching production in Gran Torino. Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran living in a Michigan neighborhood, who is widowed at the start of the movie and is left without any close family or friends. Walt’s sons view him as a bitter old man and the support they give him in the aftermath of his wife’s death is superficial at best.

Walt’s neighbors are Thao, his sister Sue, and their mother and grandmother. Thao, under pressure by the neighborhood’s Hmong gang, attempts to steal Walt’s prized 1972 Gran Torino but is caught in the process. Because of his failed attempt and his resistance to join the gang, the gang starts to beat Thao, but are chased away by Walt when they move the conflict onto his lawn. Indebted to Walt, his neighbors shower him with gifts and thanks, and insists that Thao work for Walt. Walt starts to open up to his neighbors, teaching Thao about his work and being a man, while also learning about the Hmong ways and the threat that the gangs pose to the neighborhood. He and Thao devise a plan to rid the neighborhood of the gangs for good.

Let’s start with the bad. The acting was subpar. The actor and actress that played Thao and Sue seemed to be trying too hard — Thao was either very quiet or very aggressive, with not very much display in between. Neither had convincing interactions with Walt.

Despite this, the movie shines in its story and its script. It starts out a little slow, but by the end I found myself emotionally tied to all of the main characters, understanding the motivations behind their actions. Watching Walt’s relation to his neighbors grow stronger than that with his family, to the point where he feels obligated to rid the neighborhood of the gangs, is very touching. We get to know Walt very, very well and want to see him change from his cantankerous and prejudicial image. That’s why the ending, while predictable, is powerful, and works.

This is a movie I would watch again.

From the trailer and the synopsis, The Hangover seems like a typical raunchy movie that dervies its humor from crude jokes and awkward situations…something that would usually be entertaining but from a critical standpoint would only receive a 6/10. Currently, it has a 78% on Rotten Tomatoes (85% user ratings), and an 8.4 on IMDB (#126 in the Top 250). Those ratings, however surprising, are well deserved.

The Hangover chronicles the adventures of a soon to be wed groom, Doug, who goes on a bachelor trip to Las Vegas two days before his wedding with his two best friends and his soon to be brother-in-law. The next day the latter three wake up in a destroyed hotel room with no memory of what happened the night before, and so they proceed to figure out what happened, find Doug, and make it back in time for the wedding.

I believe the number of times that I look at my watch during the movie is a good indicator of how good it is. During this movie, I checked my watch zero times. The plot rarely had a lull. Perhaps because it is structured in one of my favorite manners: show the end result first, then go back and explain what happened. In fact, it is a bit of a twist on this narrative structure in that the explanations come in the form of triggered realizations by the main characters about what actually happened the night before. I like this structure because from the start you see things that seem out of place and you can’t help but wonder why it’s there or why it happened. As a result you’re looking for that explanation for the rest of the movie, and if the explanation is good and creative and makes some sort of sense, then you think to yourself, “Wow, how clever! Everything makes sense!” In this movie, while everything seems outlandish at first, in a twisted, hungover sort of way it all seems possible.

The humor is both tasteful and untasteful at the same time. The actual situations the protagonists find themselves in are just hilarious. Here’s the aftermath of the night as the audience first saw it: a tiger in the bathroom, a rooster, on guy with a missing tooth, a baby in the closet, and a bed mattress atop a statue at Ceasar’s Palace. Imagine what sequence of events could have led to that, and you’ll find the kind of craziness that the audience finds out about over the course of the movie. The one liners are witty and memorable, (“it’s at the corner of get a map and f*** off!”), but there was a little more display of groin that I could bear.

Simply put, The Hangover is a great movie that friends can just have a laugh over, well deserving of its high praise.