by Robert Gillis, 5/2009

Note: There be major spoilers ahead, so if you haven’t seen the film (and why the hell not? it’s REALLY good!) you may want to hold off reading the following …

Approximately three gazillion people have written reviews for this new Star Trek film, and about 90% are positive. (This pleases this Trekker immensely, and the idea that a TREK film will break $200 million — and possibly $400 million or more, is just incredible.)

Since so many reviews have been written, covering every aspect of the film, a review by me wouldn’t be very interesting. For a detailed history of the film, cast, creative process and far more, visit www.TrekMovie.com, which I consider to be THE Star Trek site on the web.

But — I loved the new film, and decided to write my thoughts and impressions anyway.

The Film

  • Film is going to be one of the greatest blockbusters of the year and will easily out-profit all previous Trek films.
  • Scope is epic — NEVER seen anything like this in Trek. This film is HUGE.
  • Film needs to be seen multiple times — so much going on all the time. Constant moving, constant action. Never seen the likes of this in Trek before.

Trek Lore

  • Love the countless subtle nods to past Trek: The tribble, Admiral Archer’s beagle, the apple during the Kobayashi Maru, Sulu’s fencing, etc.
  • The concept of using a new, alternate time line is brilliant; as a device it allows real danger and unthinkable occurrences: The death of Amanda, the destruction of Vulcan.
  • As a Trekker I like the idea of using the year as a basis for a star date.
  • The writers CLEARLY love Trek.

USS Kelvin

  • First minutes of movie breathtaking; NEVER seen Trek this large. Kelvin clearly an early ship, very busy, almost primitive. I like that all the Starfleet officers are portrayed as competent and professional — a first for TOS! The imminent danger and ship evacuation — feels real. Death of George Kirk heartbreaking. The scenes as Kelvin destroyed as Jim Kirk is born — WOW.


Vulcan

  • Spock being bullied by his peers consistent with “Journey to Babel” and show that some things are universal. Jacob Kogan as young Spock is exceptionally good. Great actor.
  • Vulcan council speaks of Spock’s “disadvantage” and elaborates that the disadvantage is his human mother. Spock in turn rejects their admission offer; his “Live long and prosper” is stated in such a way that it can only mean, “and go screw yourselves.”
  • Could not believe the death of Amanda or destruction of Vulcan. The writers have balls, that is for sure. This is definitely an alternate time line!
  • Spock’s speech: “I am an endangered species:” Heartbreaking.
  • Spock’s relationship with Uhura — unexpected but well done.

Starfleet and Enterprise

  • Loved that Enterprise is built in Riverside, Iowa.
  • The scenes of Kirk riding up on his motorcycle into the busy shipyard as the music plays, and he makes his choice, are VERY effective.
  • New Enterprise is just fine; yes very advanced but believable. The ship works.
  • Love the new computer and screen graphics. Nice departure from the LCARS of previous series (which I also like)
  • Bridge redesign is phenomenal.
  • Very cool how the view screen is a window.
  • The Enterprise coming out of the clouds on Titan … Just like TWOK: Awe inspiring.
  • Liked the scene of all the shuttles taking off from the hanger. Made Starfleet seem huge. Caught the Star Wars reference: “Vader” assigned to the USS Hood.
  • Nice to see James Cawley (Star Trek Phase II) on the bridge. His work on his vision of Trek is really good.
  • Like the new cadet uniforms a lot, a little Star Wars-ish but great.
  • The “Classic” uniforms look better than ever.
  • Like that the crew of the Enterprise is very large. Makes it seem more real.
  • Liked the debate between Kirk and Spock during the hearing for cheating on the Kobayashi Maru.
  • Sound design VERY new but just the right amount of old effects.

Effects

  • Easy to summarize: Special effects beyond belief. Like nothing we have ever seen before. A+ start to finish.

Cast

  • Casting perfect.
  • Bruce Greenwood as Pike amazing.
  • Erica Bana good; the writers learned from past mistakes of spending too much time with villain talking (Insurrection, Nemesis). Nero appears as needed to advance story. Not the best villain (that would be Khan or Chang) but good performance.
  • Karl Urban seems to be channeling Deforest Kelley. PERFECT.
  • Anton Yelchin fine as Chekov — saves the day more than once. Liked him since Alpha Dog. He’s got a bright future in acting. Plus, he’s really Russian!
  • Sulu is a bad-ass. Takei must be “beaming!” Cho was a great choice.
  • Quinto is the perfect Spock, ahem, after Mr. Nimoy, of course.
  • Ben Cross as Sarek is very good; but I missed Mark Lenard, RIP. Sarek’s admission that he loves Amanda — powerful. Winona Rider fine as Amanda. Would have liked to see more — she has the character down perfectly.
  • Zoe Saldana is IN-CRED-IBLE as Uhura. FINALLY an important team member. Finally more than a “switchboard operator.” Demands to be on the Enterprise and lists her qualifications. Romance with Spock felt organic and not forced. AND finally — a canonical revelation of her first name.
  • Pegg’s Scotty mostly played for laughs, not a great deal of screen time. Accent perfect.
  • Chris Pine’s Kirk plays just the right balance of all of Kirk’s good and bad qualities without imitating Shatner. The scene of Pine’s Kirk in command gold brought cheers. This guy also has a bright future and was a great choice to play the iconic Kirk.

Spock Prime (Nimoy)

  • Nimoy’s role not a cameo; very, very poignant. Very obvious why he took the
    role.
  • Audience applauded when they saw him.
  • Nimoy’s Spock is organic and very necessary to the plot.
  • The scene with the two Spocks, as Spock-Prime explains “a friendship that would define you both” is a defining moment in all Trek. This is a Spock who is at peace with himself, and Nimoy hits this scene out of the park.


My nipicks and the not-so-good:

  • The lens flares are very cool but get annoying at times.
  • Agree with some folks who say that Spock Prime’s mind meld with Kirk to explain what happened in 2387 a little “clunky,” but necessary to explain plot.
  • Jimmy Bennett (Young Kirk) doesn’t look much like Chris Pine.
  • Kirk’s promotion is too fast if he were just a cadet; makes more sense that his grade was lieutenant and that he was referred to as a cadet because he had not yet graduated (or was suspended).
  • While the audience understands why Kirk needed to provoke Spock into an emotional outburst, the crew does not — a small scene where Kirk explains himself to the crew would make sense, to get the crew to trust him.
  • The odds of Kirk finding Spock on Delta Vega are astronomical BUT I agree with idea that the time line was trying to mend itself.
  • Transporter effect so-so; liked the other movie’s effects.
  • Enterprise and Kelvin engine rooms (redressed Budweiser factory) doesn’t work for me at all. I understand they did it to make the ship appear huge, and it looks far better than a CGI creation, but the set just clashes with the rest of the ship so much that it almost takes you out of the film.

To everyone who is upset about the changes to Trek Canon:

  • This is an ALTERNATE TIMELINE. While the film does not make it clear if previous “Original” time line survives; Bob Orci (co-writer) says it does.
  • As further proof of this, my Star Trek DVDs have not vanished so he must be right.
  • It’s a movie, dammit!
  • If all else fails, remember these very wise words from “Austin Powers:”

    Austin Powers: “Wait a tick. Basil, if I travel back to 1969 and I was frozen in 1967, presumably, I could go back and visit my frozen self. But, if I’m still frozen in 1967, how could I have been unthawed in the ’90s and traveled back to… Oh, no, I’ve gone cross-eyed.”
    Basil Exposition: “I suggest you don’t worry about those things and just enjoy yourself. [to camera] “That goes for you all, too.”
    Austin (smiles): “Yes.”


Other thoughts

  • Very grateful no reset button was pressed at the end — this is the new Trek, and anything can happen.
  • Dedicated to Gene and Majel — very appropriate.
  • Beautiful to have Nimoy’s “Space the final frontier.”
  • Beyond perfect; beyond brilliant.
  • The franchise is in good hands.
  • Mr. Abrams, Mr. Orci, Mr. Kurtzman, and Mr. Nimoy: THANK YOU.
Add to Bufferhttp://www.robertxgillis.com/uploaded_images/249-708446.jpgDigg ThisShare via email
+1Share on LinkedInShare on MyspacePin it on PinterestSubmit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on TwitterShare on Xing


by Robert Gillis

Acknowledging,and still standing by, what I wrote previously (CLICK HERE) about the eleventh Star Trek movie, I must admit that I am following development and production of the film closely and am liking what I am hearing and seeing so far. Perhaps JJ Abrams will succeed in breathing new life into the tired (exhausted?) Trek franchise after all.

That said, recently the impressive teaser trailer for the film was released. It starts with a montage of busy welders and reveals that they are building the starship USS Enterprise in a dockyard (apparently) somewhere on Earth. Interjected into this we hear the sounds of JFK (“…the eyes of the world now look into space”) and NASA (“Godspeed, John Glenn,” etc) during the heyday of the space race, and then Leonard Nimoy’s “Space, the final frontier” voice over, and the reveal of the USS Enterprise saucer, and the unmistakable Alexander Courage Star Trek theme.

The ship is massive, put together through hard work and sweat (and a lot of welding). The trailer shows the Enterprise as never seen before. It is impressive as hell.

And how do you think the Trekkers reacted?

Um, they got into a huge, raging debate that the Enterprise was not built ON Earth, but in space about Earth.

I’m not kidding. The most heated online arguments after the beautiful trailer have been that everybody knows the Enterprise was built in space, and many have added theories as to why this is so, and many others have presented detailed scientific processes by which you can build a starship on Earth and then raise it into space. And it went on and on.

Oh, some complain the lettering of the name is the wrong font, and some say the angle of the nacelles is incorrect. But the majority of comments on trekmovie.com that day of the trailer release (over 500 of them) were debating — passionately — whether Enterprise was built in space above Earth or on Earth.

I’m not kidding.

May I say this to everyone who is already nitpicking a 30 second trailer: For everyone arguing canon about whether the Enterprise was built in San Francisco ORBIT or IN San Francisco (ON THE GROUND) — if anyone can cite a specific line of dialogue from any canon aired episode of any of the Trek series or movies confirming/denying this, please speak now, or shut up, willya? For 79 episodes, Kirk’s Enterprise 1701 said “USS ENTERPRISE, STARSHIP CLASS, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.” on its dedication plaque — didn’t say anything about WHERE in the Bay City: Didn’t say ABOVE it, ON THE GROUND, at the Presidio, delivered by trolley, or in dry dock in geosynchronous orbit of the San Francisco. Just SAN FRANCISCO.

So that we can all be friends, sing Kumbaya, and move forward with our lives, I have come up with a Trek resolution that makes sense about the Enterprise’s construction. It’s based on, “A wizard did it,” the standard all-encompassing explanation for any continuity errors noticed by hardcore fans of any given fantasy show. If it doesn’t make sense, A Wizard Did It. Move on. So, with apologies to the Simpsons …

At the Star Trek / Comic Book / Xena convention …

Professor Frink: Yes, over here, n’hey, n’hey. In episode BF112, the Enterprise was clearly said to be built in space above San Francisco, and now you have it built on Earth, Please do explain it.

Lucy Lawless: Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, the temporal cold war changed it.

Frink: I see, all right, yes, but in episode AG4, the font of the lettering on the hull —

Lucy Lawless: Temporal Cold War.

Frink: But in the same episode the proportion of the Nacelles–

Lucy Lawless: Temporal Cold War.

Frink: [under breath] Aw, for glaven out loud.

Bottom line I: there’s just no pleasing some people.

Bottom line II: If the images in the trailer are indicative of the type of movie experience coming in December, Star Trek may indeed rise from its ashes. I’ll be watching.

And for the record, EVERYONE knows the Enterprise was really built at Area 51.

Add to Bufferhttp://www.robertxgillis.com/uploaded_images/star-trek-uss-enterprise-b-780997.gifDigg ThisShare via email
+1Share on LinkedInShare on MyspacePin it on PinterestSubmit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on TwitterShare on Xing


SUPERMAN II: THE RICHARD DONNER CUT REVIEW
by Robert Gillis
4/2007

Published on
SupermanCinema.co.uk

SPOILER WARNING-THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SIGNIFICANT SPOILER INFORMATION ABOUT “SUPERMAN II: THE RICHARD DONNER CUT.”

THE ROAD TO THE RICHARD DONNER CUT:

Starting in 1977, director Richard Donner filmed SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE and SUPERMAN II simultaneously. In order to make the deadline for SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, at some point in production it was decided to postpone filming the remaining scenes needed for SUPERMAN II until after SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE was finished.

However, between 50% and 80% of SUPERMAN II was already filmed by Richard Donner before he was replaced/fired by the Salkinds, the producers / financiers of the films.

And although all of his scenes had already been filed, Marlon Brando’s footage as Superman’s father, Jor-El, was to be cut from SUPERMAN II due to his litigation with the Salkinds and Warners.

Richard Lester took over as director for SUPERMAN II, continuing filming in July 1979. Lester actually re-shot several scenes already lensed by Donner. Donner has suggested this was a move by the Salkinds to deny Donner a director’s credit; other have suggested that in order for Richard Lester to earn a directorial credit on the film, SUPERMAN II had to contain at least 51% of his footage, necessitating rewrites and reshoots.

SUPERMAN II, directed by Richard Lester and released in the US in 1981 (overseas in 1980), contained at least 30% (probably more) footage shot by Richard Donner. Although few people knew it at the time, the released version of SUPERMAN II was drastically different than what Donner originally intended. In fact, it was a completely different film than much of what had originally been filmed for SUPERMAN II.

Nevertheless, SUPERMAN II was a box office hit, a critical success, an instant classic and a cherished memory for my generation and the next. I loved the film; have seen it dozens (if not over 100) times and it will always hold a very special place in my heart.

But for almost a decade, as the Internet and Web grew, Superman fans were lobbying to see a Richard Donner Cut of S2; including ALL of the footage he (not Lester) shot. Specifically, they wanted to see Donner’s original footage of Marlon Brando as Jor-El, as well as the different scenes that had been replaced / re-shot by Lester. They wanted to see Donner’s vision, Donner’s intended “companion piece” to SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE (STM).

In 2006, that campaign paid off as Warner Brothers authorized the cut. Over nine months, editor Michael Thau located, restored, cleaned up and assembled the Donner S2 footage — six tons of it — into a very different version of SUPERMAN II. Using the 1977 SUPERMAN II script penned by Donner and creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz (who, uncredited, also penned the screenplay for STM), Thau re-edited the film, and added several newly-filmed shots with CGI enhancements.

Thau did a commendable job creating a “new” film version of S2 as close to Donner’s original vision as possible some 25 years later. The film still included Lester footage, but had a decidedly different feeling and was very much a new film, much more in tone with the first Superman film, much more of a true “part two” to the original film. Over 50% of the RDC was footage never before seen.

Part of my difficulty with reviewing the Richard Donner Cut of SUPERMAN II is that I know the original Lester-directed S2 so well (OK, I can quote the entire movie) that comparison is inevitable and unavoidable, and in some cases I balk when I see how different some scenes are. Some scenes feel “wrong” only because I am used to seeing them presented in the Lester S2 way. I had that knee-jerk reaction several times — hey, that’s not the next scene! Where’s the Eiffel Towel sequence? Where’s the jump into Niagara’s Great Gorge? Where’s, “General, would you care to step outside?”

Getting past that, the RDC is a very good — but not great — film. There’s a lot to like, there’s a lot to love, but there are also some parts to dislike and some questionable choices.

After 25 years, it’s unfair to say which film is “better” because we’ve known the Lester cut of S2 since 1981, and it was professionally polished, scored and finished, whereas the RDC is still, in some ways, a fan edit, complete with questionable editing choices in places, pacing issues, and poor music choices in other scenes. Despite being a finished product, there is a somewhat “unfinished” and “rushed” quality to it. And it can certainly be argued that most of the flaws in the RDC can be attributed to the fact that it wasn’t finished in the first place.

All that said, S2: The Richard Donner Cut is a treasure and Michael Thau has pulled the proverbial rabbit out of his hat and given Superman fans a true Christmas present. Considering the age (and disorganization) of the original footage, that Thau could produce a coherent, nearly complete Donner cut is a hell of an achievement that should not be understated. On the whole, his effort paid off handsomely. And he clearly put a lot of thought (and dare I say, love) into his efforts.

There is so much about the RDC that is far superior to the Lester version of S2 — the interaction between Margot Kiddor and Christopher Reeve seems so much more natural and fun, and anything with Brando as Jor-El is better than what Lester re-shot. The fact that these Brando scenes were ever cut is a crime. Brando makes this movie, and among other things, the inclusion of the Brando footage gives real weight and emotion to certain key scenes, and even finally answers exactly how Superman gets his powers back at the Fortress of Solitude.

Yes, the RDC is a mixed bag, and as one reviewer said, “It is the ultimate deleted scene.” But it’s much more than that. It’s the answer to a wish, a look into what could have been, and like most wishes, both good things and not so good things occur when a wish is granted.

On that note, let’s discuss specifics.

THE GOOD (AND THE GREAT):

The film is dedicated in loving memory of Christopher Reeve. In the audio commentary, Donner and creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz speak so fondly of Reeve. Very appropriate, very touching.

I thought Donner’s thank you video to the fans at the top of the film was very classy.

As the villains break free from the Phantom Zone; Zod shouts, “Freeeeeeeee!” and the credits roll. Powerful! Scary! Throughout the entire RDC, the villains are much more serious, much more menacing. There is real danger here. All of the Lester slapstick and nonsense has been removed. The “cute” villain moments are gone. I’m amazed how such subtle editing changed the Zoners from campy to deadly.

After the credits, the film ope
ns with the New York skyline and a new image of the World Trade Center. It’s a little jarring to see the WTC in a “new” film post September 11, but the twin tower’s construction was completed in 1973, just four years before Superman was filmed. No effort was made to remove the WTC from the film, and I am grateful for that. Whether it’s the Lester cut or Donner cut, visually SUPERMAN II is clearly a period piece set in the late 1970s and to remove the iconic WTC would be wrong.

In a many of the scenes we have previously viewed, Thau uses different angles of the same take. Nice touch and adds to the “new film” feeling.

The new opening at the Daily Planet in which Lois sees Clark’s resemblance to Superman — fantastic. Reeve and Kidder look like they had so much fun filming this scene-it’s playful, immediately shows Lois Lane is nobody’s fool, and demonstrates how well Reeve played Clark Kent. Donner’s direction really shows here.

The additional banter between Lex and Eve is hilarious. Lex’s comment that you never use the words “Lex and Wrong” in the same sentence is great. Some of their scenes go on a little too long, but usually they’re worth it.

Every scene with Brando as Jor-El is better than the Lester scene where he was replaced, although Susannah York DID do a great job in the Lester version of S2. Having Brando back as Jor-El adds such strong (and needed) continuity to the first film.

Superman’s identity revealed: Even though it’s two different screen tests and Chris Reeve is probably 20 pounds lighter and made up differently in one half of it, the merged Donner scene in which Lois fires the gun at Clark, who is forced to reveal his true identity, is excellent. After Clark removes his glasses and admonishes Lois that had she been wrong, Clark Kent would be dead, Lois deadpans, “With a blank?” and then she smiles. “Gotcha.” Brilliant writing and execution.

However: Although this Donner scene is superior to the Lester revelation scene where Clark trips over the pink polyester bear rug, one crucial aspect the Donner screen test lacks is the follow-up between Clark and Lois. In the Lester version, after Clark has tripped and fallen and plunged his hand into the fireplace, his glasses come off and Lois yelps, “Clark! Let me look at it!” Clark fumbles to put his glasses back on and hide his uninjured hand but Lois can see he’s not burned at all. It’s an emotional scene, well acted, and tender.

Lois (stunned): “You are Superman.”

Clark: “Oh, c’mon Lois, don’t be…”

But he’s exposed and knows it, and pounds the floor with his fist. He walks toward the bed, his back to her. He removes his glasses, stands a little taller, and slowly turns around. Clark Kent is just gone. No special effect, just Reeve speaking in Superman’s voice.

Lois: “I’m sorry.” She means it.

Clark (in Superman’s voice) “No, you don’t have anything to be sorry about… I don’t know why I did that.”

Lois: “Maybe you wanted to.”

Clark: “I don’t think I did.”

Lois: “Well… maybe you didn’t want to… with your mind, but maybe you wanted to with your heart. “

A beat.

Clark: “We’d better talk.”

Lois: “I’m in love with you.”

Clark (smiles) “Then we really better talk.”

Lois: “I’m listening.”

Clark, pacing: “We can’t talk here; Perry’ll be calling at six to find out what’s happening.”

Lois: “What’s happening? That’s the understatement of the year. So, where do you want to … talk?”

Clark: “Lois, now that you know, I think you should know it all.”

She comes very close to him.

Lois: “I want to.”

Clark: ” Let’s go to my place.”

I miss that beautiful scene. Despite the setting — a garish polyester honeymoon suite — the acting is intense, sincere, and some of Kidder and Reeve’s best work in the series and a triumph for Lester. It’s a shame some sort of meld of the Donner scene with this Lester scene wasn’t possible, but it would be too jarring.

When the villains arrive in Midwestern America, the removal of the Lester lame humor and sight gags is very welcome, improves the movie dramatically, and gives the villains a FAR more menacing quality.

The exchange where Jor-El warns Superman of the dangers of falling in love is powerful. This scene’s exclusion in the original S2 is inexcusable and wrong. Brando is brilliant here. He is PLEADING with his son not to give up his powers.

Think, Kal-El! I beg you! Think!

And when Jor-El ask him, “Is this how you repay their gratitude? By abandoning the weak, the defenseless, the needy – for the sake of your selfish pursuits?” I loved Superman’s incredulous, “Selfish, after all I’ve done for them? At least they have a chance for happiness! I only ask the same, nothing more.” is excellent. And there’s Lois, after making love to Superman, wearing only Superman’s shirt and socks, watching. As Superman’s powers are destroyed, Jor-El just stares at her hatefully — and she backs up, terrified. Love it.

Great addition: General Zod smiling as he shoots people with the machine gun. Really shows how evil he is.

Now we come to the money scene-A powerless and bruised Superman arrives at the Fortress of Solitude. (Only gripe-Lester’s choice to darken the fortress a deep, gloomy green is much more effective than Donner’s choice to keep the Fortress all lit up. In the Lester version, the fortress is dark green, cold and dead. Visually it made more sense.)

That quibble aside, this is THE scene we have waited to see, and it was SO worth the wait. Jor-El appears, speaks to Superman, and dies in order to restore his son’s powers.

Superman: “Father… I failed, I failed you, I failed myself and all humanity. I traded my birthright for a life of submission in a world that is now ruled by your enemies. There’s no one left to help them now, the people of the world, not since I… FATHER!”

The Green crystal glows… He picks it up, inserts it into the control panel… He‘s shivering…

Jor-El: “Listen carefully, my son, for we shall never speak again. If you hear me now, then you have made use of the only means left to you – the crystal source through which our communication was begun. The circle is now complete. You have made a dreadful mistake, Kal-El. You have abandoned the world for the sake of private ambition. You did this of your own free will, and in spite of all I could say to dissuade you. Now you have returned here to me for one last chance to redeem yourself. This too – finally – I have antici
pated, my son. (pause) Look at me,
Kal-El… Once before, when you were small, I died while giving you a chance for life. And now, even though it will exhaust the final energy left within me… Look at me, Kal-El!… The Kryptonian prophecy will be at last fulfilled. The son becomes the father – the father becomes the son. Goodbye forever, Kal-El. Remember me, my son…”

And Jor-El appears in corporeal form and lays his hand on Superman’s shoulder, as Superman shudders and white light engulfs him.

IN-CRED-IBLE. This is the CORE of the father-son relationship theme of both films. The acting is compelling, poetic, and strong.

HOW COULD THEY CUT THIS SCENE IN THE LESTER VERSION?

Back in Metropolis…

The battle has started! Great moment: Jimmy re-entering the office with Perry’s coffee and Lex steals it out of his hand. Jimmy argues that the coffee was the Chief’s and Lex counters calmly that, “The Chief’s got it.”

I loved the new edits — during the battle over Metropolis, the focus in on what’s going on at the Daily Planet, especially with Jimmy, Lois and Perry-not on stupid sight gags and goofy slapstick humor, or people we don’t care about (like Luanne).

The battle over Metropolis, with a few exceptions, is pretty much the same, mostly Richard Lester footage and very good. Glad to see the slapstick (such as the guy on the phone continuing the conversation after his phone booth is knocked over and blown away) have been removed. This Lester-filmed battle was always VERY good, and Donner’s inclusions of the few battle shots he filmed (such as Superman hitting and destroying the Statue’s of Liberty’s torch) is very cool.

The final confrontation at the Fortress is far better than the Lester version. No silly “ray-beam” or “invisible” powers, no ripping the S-shield into a piece of cellophane. We just have Zod tell Superman, very matter-of-factly: “Your father once condemned us to eternal living death. Your fate shall be the same. You will live, Kal-El. Forever – as my slave. If not, then others will pay for your stubborn attitude. Innocent people, millions of them if necessary — Beginning with her.” and he nods to Lois.

And in this edit of the film, that’s all it takes, Given everything we’ve seen, we KNOW Zod will literally destroy the world to get his way. He’s THAT dangerous.

Impressive.

After the final battle, Superman destroys the fortress and he and Lois end their relationship:

SUPERMAN: “Look, Lois, I…”

LOIS: (brave smile) “Hey. No… regrets, you know? I mean I did it, didn’t I? I got the man I love to love me?”

SUPERMAN: (Sincerely) “Oh, yeah.”

LOIS: “So okay, then. So they need you too. I’d be buying my personal little rainbow at the cost of all those people who say, “Help, come quick … you think I don’t understand that? It’s the old eternal triangle, right? Except in my case I’ve got all of humanity in the next bedroom.”

SUPERMAN: “We’ll see each other. All the time, like before. But it can’t be like…”

LOIS kisses him passionately. He responds in spite of himself. They break. She looks up at him, trembling.

LOIS: “Just don’t forget, that’s all.”

Poetic, beautifully written and acted. Powerful. Poignant.

Finally, the new wrap-up at the Daily Planet is very sweet, really showing the fondness Lois has for Clark, and I liked his offer to pay for the pizza. Just a sweet scene.

Now we move on to the … NOT SO GOOD:

Many of my complaints about the RDC have already echoed by reviewers nationwide. The recap of the events in STM is just too long-well over five minutes. Lester’s recap in S2 — with the credits interweaved with the relevant events of the first movie — worked much better even though it ran in about the same time.

Bathroom humor. Why? Why in the world restore the god-awful bathroom humor? In prison, “Slasher Folgelstein is a bed-wetter.” “Did you go pssht?” “Why didn’t you go before we left?” And the absolute worst — a toilet flushing sound in the fortress of solitude. It’s beyond juvenile — it’s painful.

The Music — Thau elected to reuse the John Williams score from the first film rather than the Ken Thorne composition of the Williams music from S2. The result is a decidedly mixed bag. The music just feels wrong in some places, or the wrong piece of music was chosen in many places. Since all the music is “reused” and wasn’t written with S2 in mind, it never quite dovetails and is actually distracting in some places.

Luthor’s escape from Prison is waaaaayyyyyy too long.

Editing / pacing: Maybe it’s just that I know the Lester version of S2 too well, but some of the editing is just not too good. The smash cut to Niagara Falls is jarring, and in some cases the editing is a little distracting. The pacing is a little slow, and in this new film, Superman (in costume) doesn’t appear in new footage until 40 minutes into the film, unlike the Lester version of S2 where Kent switches to Superman the first three minutes of the film.

The courtship dinner at the fortress is cut before Lois says, “I’m going to change into something more comfortable” and feels rushed.

There are two instances where Superman’s “S” is clearly backwards. Sorry, but that’s just sloppy.

Biggest gripe of all-Superman turns the world around to reverse time — AGAIN? I understand that this was the original ending of S2, and at some point the decision was made to move this effect to the first film. In the Lester version of S2, Kent gives Lois the much-derided “memory erasing kiss” but everyone else remembers the attack of the Phantom Zone villains. In this movie, Superman reverses time to the point where the Donner Cut of the movie never even happens. I understand Donner would have come up with a new ending for SUPERMAN II had he been allowed to continue, but the time-reversal thing in two movies feels worse than a cheat.

On that note, as many reviewers have said, if Superman has reversed time, why does everyone at the diner recognize him at the end of the film? Sure, it brings emotional closure to have Kent give Rocky the bully a taste of his own medicine, but in this “new timeline” the two have never met.

However…

HOW I WOULD HAVE ENDED THE DONNER CUT:

REMOVE THE TURN BACK THE EARTH AND REVERSE TIME GIMMICK COMPLETELY.

After the Fortress battle…

The Phantom Zone villains and Luthor are taken away by the Artic police. Why relegate this to the “Deleted Scenes” section?

Superman and Lois and Superman end their relationship in the arctic.

After Lois and Superman speak on her
balcony, he flies off and DOES NOT TURN TIME BACKWARD. Since Lois has clearly accepted the reality of the situation, there is no need to make her forget anything. They’re both adults. She understands. It would play so much better.

Lois begins typing “Superman saves the world”

Scrap the new Daily Planet scene. Since Superman didn’t turn back time it would no longer make sense and isn’t necessary to further the plot.

Then, Kent returns to the diner and gets his revenge on Rocky.

Superman flies the flag back to the White House (Lester footage — very symbolic and powerful)

Superman flies into space / end credits.

For me, it would just work better. Forget continuity (Lois knowing the secret). Superman III and SUPERMAN IV: THE QUEST FOR PEACE are forgettable and SUPERMAN RETURNS is a “vague sequel” anyway.

SUMMARY

It would be unfair to take away anything from Richard Lester for his version of S2. While I don’t agree with some of his choices and re-shoots, despise the slapstick humor (and SUPERMAN III — Lester’s baby start to finish — was horrible) Lester arguably did his best with what he had to work with in an awkward situation back in 1979, and many of his choices for “his” S2 were very good and overall, his version of S2 holds up very well even after all these years. I still love it; it’s still a classic. The revelation to Lois, the powerless Superman returning to the dark, empty fortress, “General, would you care to step outside?” the Niagara Falls rescue, the Great Gorge jump, the majority of the battle over Metropolis are all Lester footage and very well done.

I miss the entire Paris scene at the Eiffel Tower. I miss Kent running into the alley at the top of the film, ripping open his shirt to reveal the “S” and blurring at super-speed into Superman. It’s a great effect, iconic. A few minutes into the Lester film, Superman is flying to the rescue. That moment ranks as one of my favorites in the entire series. In the Donner cut, we never see Kent change to Superman.

And so I would be remiss if I did not say, thank you Richard Lester, for your Superman II. I still love it, warts and all.

Two visions of the same film-both with great strengths and certain weaknesses and distractions.

So much of the RDC is brilliant and one can really see how this “true companion piece” to STM would have unfolded.

Had Donner been allowed to complete his version of S2 back in 1979, the issues with music and pacing and editing wouldn’t exist. So while this review mentions the editing/pacing/music issues with this cut, it is certainly understood they would have been corrected in a perfect world.

No matter what, Michael Thau has done a terrific job and made our dream come true. Many thanks to him, as well as Warner Brothers, for making it possible to see Richard Donner’s original vision of S2.

Thank you to all the fans who lobbied for this version of the film.

And to Richard Donner, there are no words to thank you for all you have done to define Superman for generations to come. Thank you for your dedication, determination, and your vision. And thank you to everyone (especially Michael Thau) responsible for bring this restored vision of S2 to life. It was well worth the wait.



My theory how BOTH versions of SUPERMAN II exist in the same timeline:

by Robert Gillis 12/2006
published on
http://www.supermancinema.co.uk

In the end, after seeing “Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut,” die-hard Superman films have to make a choice — which is the “official” Superman II? Which is canon? For some, it’s easy-the Lester 1981 film they grew up with or the Donner Cut film they have lobbied for. Period. But for many of us, myself included, there’s plenty of room for both — and logically, both CAN co-exist in the Superman movie canon…

Consider this: Superman has reversed time again, effectively erasing the entire Donner Cut movie, and in this case the time change is so massive that it creates a divergence — the events of Richard Lester’s Superman II occur next.

A catastrophic change in the timeline, causing events to unfold in a similar (but not identical) manner as before. The bonus is that is Lester’s version of Superman II DID occur, it would help explain some of the “vague history” present in Superman Returns, such as how Lex Luthor has obviously been to the fortress before, that Lois Lane had Superman’s child — events that cannot be explained if ONLY Donner’s Superman II took place.

BOTH films happened.

“It is forbidden for you to interfere with human history.”
–Jor-El

At the end of the first movie, Superman reverses time just a little bit, enough to undo Lois’ death and undo SOME of the missile damage. The rocket launches still occurred, the Earthquake still happened (there’s still the fault line crack in the Earth behind Lois’ car) and Luthor is still arrested — it’s obvious everyone remembers what Luthor did.

But in Superman II: The Donner Cut, Superman reverses time for days-maybe more than a week. The events of the entire movie are erased, causing major changes to the timeline as everything resets, and (continuing the theory) Superman, after a while, loses his memory of the events as well as he becomes acclimated to the new timeline.

So the timeline order would be:

1. Superman the Movie
happens.
Superman turns the world back with little damage to the time line.

2. Superman II the Richard Donner Cut happens immediately afterward.
Superman turns the world back with major damage to the time line; the entire movie effectively never happens, and time moves forward again. Soon after the “Revenge at he Diner” scene at the end of the Donner Cut, Superman is absorbed into the new timeline so he also has no memory of the events of the Donner Cut. This explains why he makes the same choices, and the same mistakes, again in the Lester Cut.

3. Some time later, not necessarily immediately, Superman II: The 1981 Richard Lester version happens. Events are repeated, many events are identical to what happened the first time while others are different-for example, Superman speaks with his mother Lara rather than Jor-el this time around. No time reversing at the end, Zod, Ursa and Non are not returned to the Zone, and only Lois forgets everything because of the “memory erasing kiss.”

Luthor remembers the fortress
and what he learned there… And Lois is carrying Superman’s child, Jason…

We happily ignore Superman III and Superman IV

4. Five years later in the timeline, the film Superman Returns takes place.

Well, it’s my theory, anyway, but I like it because it makes perfect sense, honors both directors’ visions of the film and the fans of either film are happy because “their” version is intact.

Now… onto 2009 and Bryan Singer’s sequel to Superman Returns. Early rumors say Singer wants to go all “Wrath of Khan” with Jude Law as… General Zod???!


Note: After Gandalf kindly posted this on the Superman Cinema, he emailed me this person’s response, which I really appreciated: “I just wanted to send a message to Robert Gillis that expresses gratitude for his even-handed review of Superman 2: The Donner Cut. I found it entertaining and good-hearted. It’s not necessary to attack one version of Superman 2 to support your favorite. Thanks, Stacy Allen Hildebrand

Add to Bufferhttp://www.robertxgillis.com/uploaded_images/SUPERMANIIKISS-797292.jpgDigg ThisShare via email
+1Share on LinkedInShare on MyspacePin it on PinterestSubmit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on TwitterShare on Xing


After nearly two decades, the Man of Steel is back!

Superman Returns Review

Published in edited form in the Foxboro Reporter June 2006
and in the Boston City Paper in edited form in two parts June and July 2006


By Robert Gillis

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD! SIGNIFICANT FILM PLOT DETAILS REVEALED! IF YOU HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE FILM YOU MAY WANT TO STOP READING NOW.

Superman is far more than a comic book character. He was the first, arguably the best, and the one from whom all others came.

He was also my first hero. He still is.

Superman is probably the best-known superhero in the world. Superman comic books have been around since 1938. He appeared in his own radio programs, three decades of newspaper comic strips, the Kirk Alyn movie serials, a myriad of cartoons over the years, the 1950s George Reeves TV show, two different Superboy TV shows, the four Christopher Reeve films, the Dean Cain / Terri Hatcher “Lois & Clark” TV show, musicals, plays, and most recently, Smallville.

And now, finally, he has been returned to the silver screen, in the new blockbuster movie, “Superman Returns.

In the new film, it takes Superman five years to make the round trip to Krypton and back to Earth, on his quest to learn if anyone else survived his home planet’s destruction.

In the real world, Superman’s return to the screen spans some 19 years, and the journey was equally perilous.

Back in 1981, following the incredible success of Superman: The Movie (STM) and Superman II (S2), (two movies that many, including myself, believe portray the DEFINITIVE interpretation of the Superman character and his world) filming began on Superman III. With that film, and its abysmal sequel Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (and let’s not even talk about the 1984 Supergirl movie) the Superman movie franchise, like the Batman sequels, took a steep nosedive in quality. They were terrible.

Superman III, with Richard Pryor, was a forgettable and frequently embarrassing film that jettisoned much of the continuity of the first two films for cheap laughs and slapstick.

Superman IV suffered from massive budget cuts, laughably bad special effects, no studio publicity and a film so badly edited that people walked out of the theater. (My best friend David said at the time, and I quote, “I will NEVER go see another Superman movie.”) Even hardcore Superman fans hate the film. In his biography, “Still Me,” Christopher Reeve summed up the fourth Superman movie in one sentence: “The less said about Superman IV, the better.”

But even after the failure of Superman IV, Warner Brothers wanted another Superman film. Over the next 17 years a myriad of writers were hired to write full scripts for Superman. During that same period, almost a dozen different directors were either approached or signed to make the film. At various times, the film was actually in production.

At one point, Nicholas Cage signed to play Superman. Anthony Hopkins signed on as his father, Jor-El. As time passed, James Caviezel, Josh Hartnett, and Brendan Fraser — and many others — were approached or auditioned for the role.

Numerous directors were either approached or actually signed onto the project. Tim Burton would direct. McG would direct. Brett Ratner would direct. Oliver Stone (???) would direct. JJ Abrams would write and direct. Tim Burton added that he intended to play up “Superman’s darker, more murderous side” and that he hoped Cage was up to the task of portraying that aspect of Superman.

Huh?

The behind the scenes politics were nightmarish as writers, directors and studio heads clashed over every aspect of the film. The biggest causality was the integrity of the legend of Superman himself.

Nearly all of the director-mandated scripts being churned out featured massive “re-imagings” of the Superman character that would be laughable if they weren’t true.

One of the first scripts had Superman dying in battle with the monster Doomsday as he had in the comic book, but managing to impregnate Lois Lane as he’s dying by way of Immaculate Conception. I’m not making this up. Lois is killed later in the story, but not before giving birth to a baby who grows to adulthood in three weeks’ time, and takes over as the new Superman and saves the world.

Another script has Superman performing Kryptonian martial arts, and not dressed in his traditional uniform and a cape, but a Matrix-ish black suit. He was also killed in this version. One of the next writers openly said he hated the special effects in the 1978 Superman film with Christopher Reeve, so he wanted to get rid of Superman’s ability to fly.

The push for marketing tie-ins and toys led to some dreadful script additions, including a hostile space dog, a gay robot servant called L-Ron, Superman using a sort of magic wand, and demands that Superman fight a huge spider. Again, I’m not making any of this up. I’ve actually read many of these terrible scripts.

(I must note that there was an exception; I thought that Alex Ford’s 1998
script, “SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF STEEL” was very good and pretty true to the character. It featured a great story, Luthor as an interesting villain, and even an appearance by Wonder Woman. But this script also fell victim to studio politics.)

In another script, Krypton doesn’t explode, Jor-El is the king of Krypton and Superman is a prince; he is “The One” whom a prophecy states will save Krypton from destruction. Worse, Superman’s costume was to be a living entity housed in a can, and it would climb onto him when needed. Lex Luthor, Superman’s enemy for the past 60 years, turned out to be an evil Kryptonian in this script.

And then things got worse.

There were fights, rewrites, hirings, firings, threats. Burton was out. Director McG was in. McG was out. Kevin Smith was in and then out. JJ Abrams’ script was in. The revolving door on writers, directors, actors, and scripts continued. Casting rumors abounded.


By 2004, after 17 years of trauma, histrionics, tempers, fights, demands, egotistic writers and directors with god complexes, confusion, and multi-million dollar “pay or play” paychecks issued, the project was in chaos and limbo — again.

But the man of steel would return. With reverence, and respect for the legend.

Superman’s savior would be a man named Bryan Singer.

In mid 2004, acclaimed director Bryan Singer was in negotiations to direct the third X-Men movie, but he was then offered the chance to direct the new Superman film. In July 2004, Singer jumped at the chance and signed on to direct Superman Returns for Warner Brothers.

Singer, no stranger to the super-hero genre (“X-Men,” X-Men United”) has taken a very personal interest in Superman. He explains, “I am adopted and I’m an American, and I’m an only child, and Superman was these three things … What interests me is that he is the ultimate immigrant and he carries it with pride … Superman is extremely idealistic and kind of represents a bit of what America is and the pitfalls one experiences in their idealism, so I very much like the character.” And for years, he had a very specific idea for a Superman movie — a pitch that Warner Brothers loved.

Although his influences for the character run the gamut, Singer has a special love for the first Superman movie, starring Christopher Reeve and directed by Richard Donner (STM). Singer even asked for and received Donner’s blessing before signing on.

But don’t expect a retelling of the origin story — writers Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris describe the film as a “pseudo-sequel” because the two of them — along with Singer — were, “…so in love with what Donner did that it felt like a mistake to go back and remake the origin story. Everyone knows the origin story. Donner did it perfectly, as far as [we're] concerned.”

So not only is Superman Returns a sequel to the first two Superman films (effectively ignoring Superman III and IV, thank Rao), but Singer and the writer’s great reverence for those movies is evident by the many homages seen throughout the film.

For example, Marlon Brando, who played Superman’s father, Jor-El, and who died in 2004, reprises his role in this film via unused stock footage filmed in 1978 by Donner and newly created digital images.

In addition, the soundtrack for the film, by editor (and composer) John Ottman, features leitmotifs created by John Williams including the iconic main title, Krypton, Smallville, and “Love theme from Superman.” Ottman succeeds in giving us just enough nods to the original score without being overbearing. The new music is soaring, beautiful, and a perfect accompaniment to the film. It feels very new, yet familiar. I LOVED it.

There have been some reviews regarding the soundtrack already. While many like it, some say that it’s a bit too melancholy, and that the “choir” music and “Danny Elfman” style sections (he composed Batman) are wrong for a Superman film. I disagree. First, there are melancholy moments in the film, and also moments of joy, and the soundtrack carries them both as well as the full spectrum of emotions. The music for “How could you leave us like that,” is a beautiful piece, positively haunting. While the soundtrack doesn’t really define a NEW sound for Superman (in other words, the new music isn’t incredibly memorable) the soundtrack still blends cues from the original with its own modern sound (much like the wardrobe, tone and sets throughout the film). The new music is also fun to listen to even on its own, so I’ll definitely be picking it up.

There are many other touches as well — For example, Ben Hubbard, the man who takes care of Martha Kent, was mentioned in STM, appears in this film, and has developed a relationship with Martha. The architecture of Krypton, Superman’s spaceships and his fortress of solitude closely resemble those depicted in the original films. There are countless nods to previous incarnations of Superman.

Now, despite all the reverence for what has gone before, obviously this new film must not only stand on its own, but be accessible to a new generation, break new ground, and have its own signature style.

According to production designer Guy Hendrix Dias: “From day one to wrap, whenever Bryan and I talked about the look of the film we always referenced Superman’s existing universe whether it be in the comics, TV series or earlier films. This is something that Bryan holds very close to his heart so when designing each environment I was very mindful of Superman’s past incarnations. Our goal was to update the Superman world, not to re-invent it.”

The updating and changes generated a lot of buzz. Obviously, the cast is new, and we’ll talk about them in a moment. The visual style of the film, particularly Metropolis, is also very different, and we’ll get to that as well. But the most controversy about the film so far seems to be about Superman’s costume itself.

Over a year ago, the first image of Superman star Brandon Routh in the new Superman costume appear
ed — and the response was immediate, and decidedly mixed. The iconic Superman costume, though instantly familiar, now has some significant modifications. And a lot of fans were very unhappy. The new suit features a much smaller S-shield, darker, muted colors, a heavy, leathery cape and a higher collar.

Long before a single frame of the film had been released, people were talking about the new costume. Many fans voiced their disappointment and even lobbied for it to be changed.

My take on the costume? I have to agree that the “S” is too small. That “S” is so associated with the character that it MUST be made prominent, and on this suit, it really isn’t. But since the “S” shield is now an actual chest plate rather than a silk-screen emblem, it would obviously be heavier and more difficult for the actor to wear during filming. Singer himself has spoke at length about the “S,” explaining, “I went back and looked at the other suits. If the “S” was too large or silk-screened, I must tell you it would have looked, at this point, like a billboard or something. It had to be just the right proportions for [Routh's] head and chest and things like that.”

So we have to live with it. As to the costume’s colors — yes, they are darker than some previous incarnations, but look great on camera and blend in well with the overall look of the film. I like them a lot. The tone of this film is darker, and it makes sense that Superman’s costume reflects that. I’ve seen computer manipulations of Routh wearing the Christopher Reeve costume and it just doesn’t work.

The new suit, tailor made for Routh, works for him. I especially like the new cape, made of heavy fabric (it looks like leather). The shirt and tights are fine; eagle eyes will notice the little “S” shields laser-cut throughout the uniform and on the “S” shield, making the uniform look like it was not made here on Earth.

The red trunks, I think, are a little high, and make Routh look a little too much like an underwear model. I do like the new “S” on the belt buckle, that’s pretty cool.

My only other complaint on the suit, like many others, is the high collar. The higher neckline looks almost like a turtleneck — and prevents Superman’s cape from draping over the neck and shoulders in the regal fashion we’ve come to expect, but I can live without it. Overall, the suit looks great.

So now we move to the man in the super-suit.

Bryan Singer’s decision to cast Brandon Routh, a relative unknown, was very wise. The character of Superman is far too iconic to be played by a known actor. If he were, it would be (God forbid) Tom Cruise playing Superman, or Nicholas Cage playing Superman. (As producer Ilya Salkind once commented on the casting of an unknown for the 1978 Superman film, “Thank God, [Robert] Redford turned it down.”) By casting an unknown, Routh’s presentation is fresh, and we see him as the character, not the celebrity. That makes it much easier to accept him as Superman.

When I first saw a picture of Routh, I was amazed by how much he resembles Christopher Reeve. He looks a little young, but at 26, he is older than Reeve was when the first Superman was filmed (24-25). And personally, I think Superman SHOULD look young. After all, as time passed, Reeve needed to wear a hairpiece for Superman IV, and near the end of the 1950s TV series, George Reeves started to look a little too old to play the role — so younger is better, especially since sequels to this film are planned.

As the year of filming passed and more images, footage, previews and interviews were released, I came to realize that Routh is perfect for this role, and the new costume works well for him. I still wish the “S” were bigger but he looks great in the Superman uniform. And he carries the role with tremendous self-confidence.

And as I get to know Brandon Routh through interviews, I find that I like him very much and am very happy he’s playing Superman. Routh looks perfect as Clark and his portrayal of Superman is excellent. He makes the characters his own. As Superman, he looks the part, carries himself with dignity and power, and speaks in Superman’s voice. In other words, as I watch the film I am now seeing SUPERMAN, not the actor Brandon Routh.

Having seen the film, let me say this:

The torch has been passed.

Brandon Routh IS Superman.

Familiar, yet new. Channeling Christopher Reeves, sure, but exuding Brandon Routh’s confidence, charisma, charm, spirit, and gifts.

(My wife added, “He’s a hunk.”)

Another aspect of the film that adds so many dimensions to Routh’s portrayal is that this Superman returns to Earth not as a god-like superhero, but a vulnerable, troubled man plagued with self doubt and wondering if the world needs him anymore, because everything has changed. It’s also a reference to the real world question of whether the character of Superman is relevant or needed in these cynical, post 9/11 times. (My answer, by the way, is absolutely YES).

Routh explains, “The whole movie’s about [Superman's] humanity … But he can still be pretty much like us, except he has these other powers of course. But I think the love story is very relatable to everyone. You lose love. You get it back. The journey you take to get the person you
love back. Giving up things. Finding the positives in the negatives. All these are human things. I trust that’s evident in the film, in my portrayal.”

This is a central theme throughout the film — “Superman Returns” isn’t just a franchise back on the big screen, it’s an appropriate description for the story of a hero who returns after a long absence to a very changed world. He wants to reconnect with the life he knew on Earth.

But reestablishing that connection proves far more difficult than Superman could have imagined. As the film originally opened, Superman explores the ruins of his home planet Krypton, after a journey of over two years. When he finally locates Krypton, he finds a radioactive field of debris. The scene was deleted for time and will hopefully be restored on the DVD. Without the Krypton scene, moviegoers might be unclear why Superman is so weak when he returns to Earth, but the pace of the film is probably better without it.

“That place was a graveyard. I’m all that’s left…”

So the film opens with an incredible explosion of Krypton — the pull back from the planet, and then the flaming run sun shrinking before it goes supernovae and destroys the planet — very impressive.

As the debris expands into space, we see that the familiar animated blue credits are back, just like the first film, but seem more modern somehow. You know this is Superman. The space scenes behind the credits as we speed toward Earth — breathtaking. It’s all POV and we zip through asteroids, around planets and through galaxies. We’ve never seen anything like this in a Superman film before.

As the credits end, we hear an old woman talking. She is dying, telling her husband how she knows there is good inside him and how grateful she is that he took care of him. The woman is Gertrude Vanderworth, a wonderful cameo by Noel Neil, who played Lois Lane in the original 1940s Superman serials and for all but one season of the George Reeves series. (In sort of a double homage, (Neill, along with Kirk Alyn, played Lois Lane‘s parents in STM.) What’s interesting is the paradox of her role — 86 year old Neill plays a woman who is frail and dying, but having met Miss Neill at a convention in 2004 I know that she is lively, friendly, and has more energy than people twenty years younger.

But the elderly billionaire, a widow, is being bilked and has left everything to Lex Luthor, Superman’s diabolically brilliant nemesis, played by Academy Award winner Kevin Spacey.

Having worked with Singer previously on the film, “Usual Suspects,” Spacey took to the Luthor role with gusto. In fact, the role was written specifically with Spacey in mind.

One frequently told story is Spacey driving crazily around the Superman set in a golf cut with a Superman figure tied to the back while he terrorized Routh and other people on the set, shouting, “Kill Superman! Die Superman!” into a megaphone. None of this appears in the film, of course, because this Lex Luthor is NOT played for laughs.

While Gene Hackman played Luthor in three Superman films as comic, campy, and more silly than evil, Spacey plays Luthor with deadly seriousness and danger. Luthor is still obsessed with real estate, but he has spent five years in prison and is now darker, bitter, and seeks revenge on Superman. This Lex Luthor is VERY dangerous.

In every scene Spacey has, he projects a feeling of menace, of danger. Even when he’s being cute or coy, you can tell this man is brilliant, and certainly to be feared.

“You’re not a god,” his partner in crime, Kitty Kowalski tells him at one point.

Steel eyed, Luthor replies, “Gods are selfish beings who fly around in little red capes and don’t share their power with mankind.”

So to steal that godlike power, Luthor heads north to return to Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude, created by advanced Kryptonian crystal technology (and the place that allows Superman to commune with the spirits of his parents.)

The Fortress of Solitude gave me goose bumps. This is one of the many places in the film where the special effects technology shows up so well. This fortress, while faithful to the original design concepts in STM, is modern, towering, beautiful, and the camera pans around in 360 degrees to reveal all of it. And the recreation of Brando makes the scene. Rather than some random Kryptonian elder — Lex and the other intruders have an audience with Jor-El — God himself (“I have sent them you, my only son”). The computer process to recreate Brando was incredibly complex and the result is impressive.

“Tell me everything, starting with the crystals,” Luthor says to Jor-El.

Once Luthor is able to learn about and harness the crystal technology, he intends to use the crystals to create an eighth continent from the ocean floor — his own ultimate real estate venture — regardless of the catastrophic damage its creation it will cause to the rest of the Earth.

Meanwhile, Superman has returned to Earth. After a spectacular fiery crash landing on the Kent farm, Superman gets a good night’s sleep in his old bedroom and then tries to become acclimated to being back home.

The recreation of the Smallville farm was very well done. I liked the little touches such as the pictures on the mantle including Glenn Ford (as Jonathan Kent from STM).

The reunion of mother and son is poignant. “If your father were alive he wouldn’t have let you go,” a tearful Martha Kent (the perfectly cast Eva Marie Saint) tells Clark. And then she breaks down. “I never thought I’d see you again.”

Although some of her scenes were cut, what remains is perfect. There is real emotion here — this isn’t a comic book — this is a story about a man returning home to his family and the people he loves. The acting in this scene is powerful, and reminds me of the scene in the first movie when Martha tells her son, “Remember son. Always remember us,” and you feel the tears welling up in your eyes because of the sheer power (and heartache) of the moment.

Superman spends some time walking the farm, soaking in memories. I loved the scenes with Stephen Bender as young Clark, running through the fields and his delight when he learns he can fly. Bender is another perfect cast; he looks just like a young Brandon Routh. One departure from the canon of the first movie is that young Clark Kent wore glasses. Perhaps the Kents wanted Clark to wear them so he wouldn’t stand out? (Later in the film, we meet another young man who just might be pretending to be weaker than he really is to cover up special abilities.)

There are some deleted scenes here as well; I hope that the DVD shows the scene of young Clark finding his spaceship and older Clark (Routh) reviewing five years worth of newspapers as he brings himself up to speed. Both looked great in the previews.

I liked the way Routh portrays “Farm Clark.” This is the “real” Clark, the guy who doesn’t need the glasses or the cape — he can just be himself, and confide in and seek advice from the one person in the entire world who knows his secret, and understands him completely — his mom.

And it’s mom who gives him solid advice — it’s time to get on with your life. It’s time to go back to work.

(When Luthor invaded Superman’s arctic Fortress of Solitude, he says to his colleagues, “This is where he found out who he was. This is where he came for guidance.” While Superman did indeed learn his Kryptonian destiny up north, I would argue that it is in Smallville, on the farm, where he finds out who he is, and where he comes for guidance. And rather than listen to Jor-El speak of virtue and the total accumulation of all knowledge spanning the twenty-eight known galaxies, Superman gets his best guidance and love from his adoptive mom, who offers a hug, an ear, a good night’s rest, and in the end, a loving push in the right direction.)

So Superman returns to the work at the Daily Planet as Clark Kent and plays the role of “Clumsy Clark” to perfection. While not as over-the-top goofy as some other interpretations of Kent, Routh’s Clark Kent is more of the shy, insecure guy that we can all identify with. With one exception, he doesn’t bump into things, knock things over, or cause chaos. He’s just the nice guy who still says, “Swell” and tries very hard to be liked. It’s a refreshing portrayal of Clark — and clearly even this character has matured.

But Clark‘s surprises keep coming. Superman’s true love, reporter Lois Lane (the beautiful and engaging Kate Bosworth), has written a Pulitzer Prize story, “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Lois is engaged to be married to Richard White, nephew of Planet Editor Perry White (Frank Langella), and she has a young son, Jason (Tristan Lake Leabu).

Over the last year I wasn’t at all happy that Lois had a child. As a sequel to Superman II, it would certainly be possible that Lois and Superman conceived a child during the night they spent together. But children in movies are usually unbearably cute or an unholy terror, and Lana Lang having a child in Superman III didn’t go over too well with fans.

But thankfully, the fragile five year old Jason is not portrayed as the god-awful annoyance as Jake Lloyd was as Anakin Sywalker in the first Star Wars movie, nor is he a cute moppet or another McCauley Calkin. He’s just a little five year old boy. Likeable, cute but not overbearingly so, sweet but not sugary. A kid. And in the film, he has some nice moments and is never annoying.

Still, I didn’t know how it would be played out. Is Superman a deadbeat dad? How can he handle the guilt of unknowingly abandoning his son? And what if Jason was not Superman’s child? Obviously, Superman isn’t a home wrecker. Except for her anger toward Superman’s not saying goodbye, Lois seems to have a good life. She has a son she adores and a fiancée who adores her. They live comfortably and seem happy.

And yes, what about poor Richard?

James Marsden’s Richard is excellent. Yes, he’s the guy who replaced Superman and is “Daddy” to Jason. But you cannot dislike him. He’s a good guy, does the right thing, is a great father-figure to Jason and clearly loves both Lois and her son very much. Throughout the film, you see examples of why Lois loves him — like Superman, he’s confident, kind, loving, and wants to help. This makes the story even more compelling because if Richard were a jerk we could immediately dislike him and root for Superman. But since Richard is a good man, we feel his pain and small jealousy as Superman Returns to Lois’ life.

“Were you in love with him” Richard asks Lois.

“He was SUPERMAN,” Lois replies, a little exasperated. “Everyone was in love with him.”

Richard doesn’t let it go. “But were you?”

And after a long pause, Lois says, “No.”

Planet photographer Jimmy Olsen would disagree. “If you ask me,” he tells Clark, “she’s still in love with you know who.” Sam Huntington’s Jimmy Olsen is honestly the first time I’ve ever liked the character. Jimmy Olsen has never been a favorite of mine; in the comics he usually the bow-tied geek or an irritating kid. In the movies, I also thought he was just annoying. But this Jimmy is cool, interesting, and wants to do a great job as a photographer. He also really likes Clark. He is overjoyed at his old friend’s return (he even makes him a little cake) and takes it upon himself to play welcome committee and mentor to Clark. The scene where Jimmy takes Clark to the BAR for a DRINK — not a soda pop mind you, shows how Jimmy has matured.

And the bartender is played by Jack Larson, TV’s Jimmy Olsen throughout the 1950s Superman series. Larson, 78, plays bartender “Bibbo” as a gruff, no nonsense type. Seeing “Jimmy Olsen” serve drinks to “Jimmy Olsen” was very cool. (Larson, a Quaker, doesn’t drink in real life!)

Here at the bar, we learn that Lois is aboard a Boeing 777, which is carrying a new type of shuttle, the Genesis, up for a test launch into space. But the flight is disrupted by an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) caused by Luthor’s crystal experiments at the Vandeworth estate. A widespread blackout causes massive disruptions and fouls the shuttle’s computers — the shuttle cannot disengage from the 777 and its booster rockets are ready to fire. The launch can’t be aborted and the couplings won’t release. The thrusters ignite and send the jet hurtling through the sky.

The passengers are being tossed about, and Lois undoes her seatbelt in order to help someone who fell get to safety. I really liked how Lois immediately became a hero — looking out for others rather than herself — there are several instances in this film where is LOIS who is the rescuer. She even saves Superman’s life at one point.

Clark bolts from the bar, racing down the street and rips open his shirt to reveal his Superman costume. (What was fun for me, besides the power of the moment, is recalling that this was one of the very first scenes of the movie that was shot back in April 2005, and I remember the headlines, “First photos of Routh as Clark Kent!”)

I don’t have an adequate superlative to describe the flying sequences. Special effect technology has come so far, even in these last few years. These days, it’s not “You’ll believe a man can fly,” because everyone flies around in movies these days — even Keanu Reeves flew in the Matrix films (and did so realistically; I remember seeing “Matrix: Reloaded” and musing that if a new Superman film were ever made, I hoped that the flying would be that good). These days, the question is, “Is the flying believable? Does the flying seem organic to the story or does it look like a special effect?

The flying throughout the film is incredible and believable.

Another thing I liked about this shuttle scene — a feeling carried throughout the movie — is the very real sense of danger. I recall a scene in Superman IV when a train conductor had a heart attack and the train raced through the tunnel, out of control, until Superman came to save the day. A train was speeding, people were screaming, but it all seemed contrived. The people weren’t really threatened, it was just stupid.

But in this new movie, the 777, its engines dead, its tail on fire, is plummeting to the ground as the passengers aboard are tossed around like rag dolls. The danger is real. In this movie, people get hurt, people get beat up — badly. And in a few cases, people actually die. It makes the film seem more real, less like a comic fantasy.

Another aspect of this realism is how Superman handles rescuing the shuttle and plane. He’s not godlike, he is not sure how to handle it. After using his heat vision (nice effect, by the way) to sever the shuttle’s couplings, he boosts the shuttle into orbit, while the plane, its tail in flames, plummets to the ground as people are thrown violently about. Again, there is nothing cartoonish here — this moment is violent and you believe people are in grave danger and going to die.

As the plane continues it death spiral, Superman attempts to lift the plane up by its wing, much as he did in STM — but the wing explodes and breaks off, seeing him hurling. He’s made a mistake — this idea won’t work. Regrouping, Superman hurls himself in front of the plane, grabbing its nose, and with tremendous effort is able to finally slow the plane and right it, setting it down gently in the middle of a baseball stadium. I really liked how Superman had to work to get this job done — this is not the omnipotent guy who threw the planet Neptune around in the 1960s comics.

Ever so gently, Superman lands the plane onto the field in the middle of a baseball stadium. As thousands of spectators cheer his return, Superman races into the plane. He asks if everyone is all right — then locks eyes with Lois: “Are you all right?” There is an immediate connection.

There is real chemistry between Bosworth and Routh. The two leads say a lot to each other through facial expressions,
eye contact, and what they DON’T say. These two are great actors, and we believe they were (and are) very much in love.

I really like Bosworth’s Lois Lane. She plays the role not as a comic book character but as someone who has loved and lost, and moved on with her life. She works very hard, she’s intelligent, aggressive, driven, but when her true love comes back into her life, she is confused, hurt, and torn.

At first, Bosworth seems just a little too young for the role of a mother and someone with a history with Superman and a five year old child (23) so a small suspension of disbelief is necessary here, which isn’t much to ask in a movie about a guy who files. But as the film unfolds, Bosworth plays the role with such maturity — both as a mother to Jason and lover to Richard — that you forget all about her age.

Lois is still spunky and impulsive, still smokes and can’t spell, but she is a very good mother to Jason and devoted partner to Richard.

And she’s mad, and hurt. When she and Superman finally meet on the roof of the Daily Planet, she is pissed at him. “How could you leave us like that?” Lois asks Superman. She’s angry. She is very hurt. “The world doesn’t need a savoir, and neither do I.” And Superman sees how hurt she is. That he caused this pain.

“Lois, will you come with me?” He asks. “Please.”

The two share a flight over Metropolis, and Lois remembers what the experience of being with Superman is like (the effects here are dazzling, and I particularly like the scene of the pair flying just inches above the ocean, their reflections in the water as they fly back toward Metropolis).

But too much has happened. Everything is different now. Their rooftop parting has finality.

The next day, Lois, investigating the EMP, and finding its center at the Vandeworth mansion, sneaks into the yacht with Jason — and is horrified to find Lex Luthor. Luthor reveals his plan — using Kryptonian crystal technology to create a new continent off the East Coast — the ultimate real estate deal. In the process, billions will die as earthquakes and storms destroy parts of the Earth.

Lois and Jason are held prisoner, and Lois manages to send a distress fax to the Planet before another massive EMP erupts as the Kryptonian Crystal begins building the continent Lex dubs, “New Krypton.”

At the planet, the fax received, Superman flies off to save Lois, while Richard follows in his sea plane.

In retaliation for trying to escape, one of Lex’s goons goes after Lois — obviously intent on killing her — when suddenly the piano where Jason is sitting flies across the room and kills the thug. Interestingly, Lois doesn’t seem too surprised at this development.

As the new continent, laced with Kryptonite, continues to build, chaos erupts across the eastern seaboard. The EMP has blacked out Metropolis again. All hell is breaking loose. The earth is splitting. Fires are erupting, power is out, gas lines are exploding, buildings are collapsing, people are falling from buildings, buildings are exploding — and Superman is there to help. The rescue sequences are spectacular; I particularly liked the scene of tons of broken glass falling toward the street until Superman flies under it and vaporizes it with his heat vision, or as the Daily Planet Globe plummets to Earth, Superman catches it. Perry White, nearly killed by the Globe, utters an astonished trademark “Great Caesar’s Ghost!” to the wild applause of the crowd in the theater.

And I have to say — seeing a metropolitan area so devastated immediately made me think of 9/11. The idea of a city under siege isn’t fiction any more — also adding to the emotion and realism of this sequence.

Back on the yacht, Lex has locked Lois and Jason in a small room. Bosworth is excellent here; conveying despair and genuine fear — she’s terrified, and sure she and her son are going to die. But Richard arrives to rescue them, just as one of the giant crystals spears the yacht, causing it to split it in half. Richard heroically rescues an unconscious Lois and Jason, only to find the three of them trapped in the smashed yacht. Superman rescues them in spectacular fashion, and then Richard, Lois and Jason take off for Metropolis in the sea plane and Superman heads to “New Krypton” to confront Lex.

As Lois regains consciousness, she convinces Richard to turn around and go back so that they can see if Superman needs any help.

As Superman finally confronts Luthor in the Kryptonite-laced continent, Lex and his thugs proceed to beat the powerless hero mercilessly. This is an incredibly powerful visual. The goons really, really beat Superman, breaking bones and nearly drowning him before Luthor stabs Superman with a Kryptonite shiv while snarling, “Now FLY!” It is chilling and horrifying. THIS Luthor is not being played for laughs. He HATES Superman and wants him dead. It’s powerful stuff, and horrifying to watch as a near-dead Superman plummets into the sea.

In a nice turnaround, it is Lois who dives into the water and rescues Superman, removing the Kryptonite from his side. As the trio head back to the city, Superman flies into the sunlight to recharge his powers — a beautiful image — and then plunges back toward New Krypton and proceeds to begin lifting the entire continent into the sky.

Lex and his cronies make a run for it, and several are killed as the massive crystal towers crush them. Kitty and Lex escape by helicopter as Superman finally manages to hurl the continent into space. But not without cost — the deadly Kryptonite emanating from the continent has fatally poisoned him, and as the great land mass is thrown into space, Superman loses consciousness and falls back to Earth.

The
scenes of our hero being rushed into the ER as hundreds of onlookers watch are startling. Seeing the defibrillator paddles explode and the IV needles break on Superman’s skin is humorous and chilling — humorous because we know Superman is invulnerable, chilling because we know that invulnerability will prevent his receipt of life-saving aid.

Our last sight of Luthor and Kitty is on a very tiny island somewhere, their helicopter is out of gas, and they are stranded and trapped. As we panned away overhead, we see that Lex got his wish — his own “continent” which is a little beach about twenty feet wide. The irony is delicious.

As Superman lies near death in Metropolis, thousands stand vigil outside, waiting for word. Among them are Martha Kent and Ben Hubbard. It is gut-wrenching to see Martha there, so concerned, so alone, because no one knows that’s her son dying in the hospital. She can’t get in, no one would even believe her if she told the truth about who she is. It’s heartbreaking that all she can do is wait. I sincerely hope EVERYTHING with Eva Marie Saint is included on the DVD. She is just wonderful.

Lois and Jason visit Superman, and Jason quietly traces the S on Superman’s discarded costume as Lois leans toward Superman’s ear and whispers, “There’s something I have to tell you.” Presumably, she’s telling him that Jason is his son.

“I like him,” Jason says.

“Me too,” Lois tells her son gently.

There were rumors that early drafts of this script has Jason, Superman’s son, save his father by means of a blood transfusion as Superman lay dying in the hospital. That doesn’t happen in the film. Instead, we get a beautiful scene where Jason, on leaving the hospital room, races back and gives the unconscious Superman a little kiss on the forehead. It’s such a kid thing to do, very loving, very sweet.

So after everything that has happened, the big question is: Is this little boy, who was born right after Superman left, the tyke with the asthma inhaler and allergies — is he Superman’s son?

He is, although the evidence is compelling but not conclusive. There is obviously a deliberate effort to confuse the audience — There’s no moment when Jason starts flying, but there are clues: Very, very subtle clues, and one big giveaway. There are little things, like Jason immediately recognizing the resemblance between Clark and Superman. Jason is academically gifted. Jason spotting Superman in the water when no one else could see him (telescopic vision?). Jason, tightly gripping the arm chair of Richard’s plane as the aircraft makes its way out of a death plunge (flying?). His mother’s fear of Jason’s proximity to Kryptonite. And Luthor asking, “Who’s that boy’s father?” And when Lois replies, “Richard,” Luthor asks with a smirk, “Are you sure?”

And of course, we recall that as a horrified Jason watches one of Luthor’s goons beats Lois, intent on killing her, the piano suddenly flies across the deck of the boat, killing the would-be killer. Did the boat shift, or did Jason throw it to defend his Mom? Having seen the film five times at this point, it is very obvious that Jason pushed it — nothing else in the room was disturbed except the piano, which literally rockets across the room.

(Despite the vagueness in the film, Bryan Singer was later quoted at Comic-Con as saying, “Jason is 100% Superman’s son.”)

In the final scenes in the movie, Superman is standing at the foot of Jason’s bed. The child is asleep and Superman has a look on his face that conveys so much happiness, so much pride. Superman has tears in his eyes. He is in awe. He begins talking to Jason in the words of his father, Jor-El. You will feel different, but you will never be alone. The son becomes the father and the father, the son.

It’s probably the most moving Superman scene ever filmed. I was literally choked up.

And what I love most is what wasn’t said — Superman isn’t a home wrecker, it’s not his intention to break up Lois and Richard, or disrupt Jason’s life. He promises his son he will never be alone, and he knows that his boy is in good hands, and tells Lois, “I’m always around.” He’s back for good.

Superman spent five years away, trying to locate something he had on Earth all the time. Home. Family. The irony isn’t lost on Superman, and it’s clear that he’s found what he was looking for and he will never leave again.

The series can go anywhere from here, and in the care of this cast and crew, we know Superman is in good hands.

Since 2004 I have been following the production of this movie almost daily. I didn’t want to get my hopes too high; Superman has disappointed me before.

But I could not have asked for better. I never expected the film to be this big, this good. There was NOTHING I didn’t like and dozens of scenes that impressed the hell out of me. I LOVED IT. I will see this film many times — something I haven’t done for a film for many years.

Some reviews of this film have commented that the best scenes have already been shown in the 20 TV spots or three trailers. This isn’t true. While many terrific scenes have been shown (and you h
ave to LOVE the bullet bouncing off Superman’s eyeball shot), you simply can’t get an accurate understanding of the movie from minutes of clips. Even if you’ve read the novel, even if you seen the movie guides, you don’t know this film.

There are twists and turns, there are nuances, subtleties, and subtext. The actors bring these characters to vivid life and make us care about the story. The sets and “look” of the film transport us easily to Metropolis, Smallville, the ruins of Krypton, and to many other places.

Visually, the production design of the film is very impressive. While the Donner film was clearly set in 1978, this film has more of timeless feel, due to the deco style throughout, particularly in the Daily Planet sets, which appear to be a pleasing combination of modern technology with Art Deco facades. This blending of old and new gives the film a timeless feeling. There are deco fixtures next to plasma screens. And everything looks lived in, not shiny like it was just created. And the details, the details, the details... from the framed newspapers on the walls to the unusual facade at the entrance, everything on this set are in the details.

The special effects are simply phenomenal. Finally, we have the technology to show Superman as he was meant to be seen. Many of the shots in this film use advances in movie making magic and computer technology undreamed of just a few years ago.

The CGI and other effects are organic to the film, never intrusive, but simply spectacular.

The surprises — some telegraphed, some out of nowhere, are brilliant. The look of the picture is stunning.

Fans will probably be divided over whether the film is too derivative or not derivative enough of other Superman movies/shows, but I think one particular decision will be embraced by all — the film is dedicated to the memory of Dana and Christopher Reeve.

Acknowledging my lifelong love of the character, I have never been obsessed to the point where I will accept anything. Some interpretations of Superman have been tolerable (the third movie, some of the cartoons), some have been unforgivable (the 1974 musical, the fourth movie) and some have produced outrage and confusion (the comics, the new “Birthright” Superman origin).

So I say with no hyperbole whatsoever that the movie is perfect. It was completely worth the wait. I absolutely could not have asked for more. I never expected it to be this good, this perfect.

I loved the story. I loved the nods to the comics and the movies that were everywhere, making this universe both new and familiar. I loved that the characters are handled with reverence and respect, that the story is meaningful, and the action is intense. The performances are dead on, they are brilliant. The casting is perfect. The film has heart.

Thank you, Bryan Singer. Thank you, Brandon Routh. Thank you to everyone who made this movie a reality.

Superman Returns. Better than ever. The legend intact. The film, perfect.

You will believe, again.

Add to Bufferhttp://www.robertxgillis.com/uploaded_images/sr-newspaper-ad-749011.jpgDigg ThisShare via email
+1Share on LinkedInShare on MyspacePin it on PinterestSubmit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on TwitterShare on Xing


Star Trek: Insurrection
By Robert Gillis
Published in the Foxboro Reporter 12/1998

Star Trek continues to live long and prosper. “Start Trek: Insurrection,” the ninth Star Trek feature film and third film outing for the “Star Trek: The Next Generation” (ST:TNG) cast, is a solid action story, featuring a morality tale, humor, and for the first time in a while for a Trek film, romance. In addition, this movie features far more location shooting than any previous trek film, which gives the film a grand scale.

“Insurrection” opens as the captain of the Federation Starship Enterprise, Captain Jean-Luc Picard (Patrick Stewart), learns that one of his officers, the android Data, has apparently gone berserk and taken a cultural survey team hostage on a planet populated by the mysterious Ba’ku people.

Picard and his crew arrive at the Ba’ku planet, where the Federation and another alien race, the Son’a (a nasty looking group) are conducting the cultural survey of this village of 600 people. The Ba’ku are very intelligent and highly developed, but have adopted a simple life on this planet.

The Ba’ku village — filmed in Sierra Nevada and stunningly beautiful — is the most interesting and gorgeous set ever constructed for a Trek film. As the opening credits roll, the camera shows children playing, and a breathtaking view of a rural community built along a sparkling lake, mountains in the background, livestock grazing and simple, happy people living a peaceful life.

But the Ba’ku planet holds an amazing secret: Its inhabitants are over three centuries old. Unusual rings surrounding the planet have created a “fountain of youth” effect. Anyone who goes to the planet will grow younger and live forever.

The Enterprise crew soon learn that the “cultural survey” is only a cover for a sinister plot to kidnap the Ba’ku, exile them from their world, and exploit the planet’s fountain of youth properties for the Son’a, who we learn are an ancient, dying race. The Federation also wants to exploit this special planet, and considers the Ba’ku expendable, and obstacles in the way of progress. Why spare a mere 600 people for a planet that can grant eternal youth to millions? Or billions?

What makes this change of policy so compelling for Star Trek fans is that Starfleet would previously never have embraced such a plan. But we are reminded that the squeaky-clean Star Trek of the original series and ST:TNG have given way to a more gritty, more dangerous universe. For the latter half of the current Star Trek TV series “Deep Space Nine,” Starfleet has been at war with several belligerent cultures — and is feeling the pressure. The glory days of the Federation are over, it seems.

Picard is furious: If an entire people can be forcibly removed, destroying their culture and way of life, when does it stop? How many people before the act is wrong? A thousand? Ten thousand?

“Who the hell are we to choose the next course of evolution for these people?” Picard asks.

For Picard, the principles that the Federation is founded on have to be upheld. The Prime Directive — which maintains that any civilization must be permitted to develop at its own pace — must be preserved. Picard takes a stand, deciding he must put his career and loyalties on the line, and protect the Ba’ku homeworld. Naturally, his entire crew join him in the rebellion.

Making moral choices has always been part of the Star Trek tradition, and the stand-out episodes and movies have been those that stay true to the original premise of the show — entertain the viewers, and have a strong message underneath. Whether the topic is warfare, birth control, drugs, prejudice, or even saving the whales, these are the best treks.

This time around, a benevolent government is being manipulated into doing something evil for a “greater good.” The comparison to many of history’s forced moves of a group of people by one more powerful — such as the American Indians — is obvious.

But there’s also a second underlying message — living in the moment. Picard’s love interest, Anij, asks Picard, “Have you ever experienced a perfect moment in time . . . when time seemed to stop . . . and you could almost lived in that moment?” The Ba’ku have discovered that a single moment in time can be “a universe in itself.” It’s a terrific commentary about the insane pace of modern life — whether it be in the 24th century of Star Trek, or right now in the 20th.

The crew reacts to the planet’s “fountain of youth” properties in many ways; the most amusing is the normally stoic Picard, who forgoes his usual classical music for a rumba, and then begins dancing to the music. The scene is absolutely endearing. The cast’s youthful reactions inject this film with a great deal of energy, and fun.

My one complaint about the film is a scene where Picard pursues Data in a shuttle-chase through the Ba’ku planet’s atmosphere. Unable to reach through Data’s temporary dementia, Picard recalls that Data had been rehearsing a scene from HMS Pinafore and breaks into song. This gets through to Data, who begins singing as well. It’s an embarrassing moment, clearly played for laughs, and the film would be better without it.

Still, the movie will appeal to trekkers and non-trekkers alike. The story is compelling and also fun. With over fifty standing sets and far more location shooting than any previous Star Trek film, the movie feel bigger. The exodus of the Ba’ku at night is pure Cecil B. DeMille. There are space battles, computer generated pets (as in the Lost in Space film), armed conflict and lots of action, and of course, the Enterprise once again gets hammered by enemy fire. Picard has a real love interest, and all the regular ST:TNG supporting characters have interesting roles (including regulars Riker and Troi, who rekindle their previous romance). In fact, it’s very obvious that the cast had a lot of fun making the film — they’ve so grown into their roles that they, for the first time, feel like “real people.” It’s unusual to see Star Trek characters acting so … well … so colorful and animated. The on-screen camaraderie, friendship and romance is very believable. It all makes for an exciting, interesting film.

Joining the cast this time are F. Murray Abraham as the sinister Son’a leader Ru’afo, who won an Oscar for Best Actor as Amadeus. Picard’s love interest Anij is played by Donna Murphy, a Tony Award winner for her performances in The King and I and Passion. Anthony Zerbe, who plays Starfleet Admiral Dougherty, won an Emmy Award for his role on ABC-TV’s Harry O, and has appeared memorably in such films as Cool Hand Luke, Papillon, and License to Kill.

Regular cast member Jonathan Frakes, who did a commendable job directing the previous Trek film, has also directed episodes of ST:TNG, Trek’s “Deep Space Nine,” and “Voyager,” as well as Diagnosis: Murder and University Hospital.

Star Trek remains a profitable franchise for owner Paramount, with films, television shows, books and other merchandize grossing more than $1 billion worldwide. This film’s predecessor, “Star Trek: First Contact,” produced the biggest opening-weekend gross of any of the Star Trek films, and earned $92 million at the box office.

“Star Trek: Insurrection” does the franchise proud, and here’s hoping for a tenth movie installment in 2001!

Add to Bufferhttp://www.robertxgillis.com/uploaded_images/st9_aff-787034.jpgDigg ThisShare via email
+1Share on LinkedInShare on MyspacePin it on PinterestSubmit to redditSubmit to StumbleUponShare on TumblrShare on TwitterShare on Xing