Star Trek

Ah, Star Trek. While the newer movie will never compare to the awesome poor acting and good-hearted racism of the original Star Trek, this is actually a good movie. Better than Superman Returns, but less awesome than the Dark Knight, if that gives you any basis of comparison.

Instead of the cheesy graphics we’re used to, this movie has amazing CGI that is awesome in its own right. I wish so desperately that I had seen it in IMAX so that I could further appreciate the realistic, and yet futuristic, style. Along similar vein, instead of the corny and non-sequitor dialogue I so enjoyed in the past, the actors pull off the dialogue much better in a more believable and humorous way than in the past. However, like every Star Trek movie, the plot can’t make too much sense. There are more plot holes in this movie than your mom’s old sweater, but enough explanations and good acting to make you nonetheless suspend your belief the entire way through.

Moving on to the actors, the new Spock, played by Zachery Quinto, is both sexy and a believable actor. He gives Spock so much more depth than the stiff acting I so desire from Leonard Nimoy, who also is in this movie. I think he is one of the few actors who can be both emotionless and emotive at the same time. The new Kirk, played by Chris Pine (no, I’ve never heard of him either), also puts a different spin on William Shatner. While the elder Kirk was pompous, self-serving, and didn’t realize it, the newer Kirk is self-aware of his womanizing, arrogant self. Also delightful in this movie is the fact that the main character doesn’t get everything that he wants. He does not get the girl he chases after, women do not allow themselves to be walked all over to get into Kirk’s pants, and Kirk frequently loses fights abysmally.

So, go see Star Trek! It’ll be good, whether you are fluent in Klingon or not.

Batman: Murder and Wayne Manor (Bonus!)

Most (meaning all) of my bonus pasts have been regarding comic books, graphic novels, and manga (yes, there's a difference). This is a Batman book, but containing mostly word with a few side illustrations. However, this is still a really exciting book. You might think that Batman is always exciting, and you're right. Or, you might think that pictures are nice visual aids, and you're right. Or, you might think murder is cool, but you'd be horribly mistaken in that count.

No, the real reason I think this book is so awesome is that it is 'interactive'; Meaning, there are inserts in the books with different clues that Batman uses to solve the murder, such as an autopsy, a newspaper (with funny unnecessary articles), photographs, and many other tactile delights. For people like me who learn best using visual cues and tactical objects, this is an amazing book. I found myself skipping ahead in the book just to get to the next clue.

If you aren't a tactile enthusiast like I am, or a Batman fanatic like I am, then this will not be enjoyable. However, if you fall into either of those categories, then this is a really funny and interesting book.

Reservoir Dogs

Quentin Tarantino, well known for making Pulp Fiction, created a brilliant gangster film in 1992 called Reservoir Dogs. It has a simple enough premise of six men who rob a jewel store. However, it turns into a bloodbath when the police show up early, and the remained robbers realize that one of their number is a cop. Instead of focusing on the robbery, Tarantino (in his typical non-linear storytelling) delves into the nature of man, contrasting cowardice with bravery, logic with psychotic, and truth with lies.

Undoubtedly one of most gripping gangster movie created since the Sting, Reservoir Dogs contains a ridiculous amount of swearing and violence. Collectively, the characters use the word fuck 269 times in 99 minutes, meaning 2.71 uses per minute. If that isn’t impressive, then I don’t know what is. Furthermore, this movie to notable for it’s graphic depiction of a torture scene and the deaths of multiple characters. In holding to most gangster movies, everyone dies at the end, which is part of the reason it’s so awesome. The other reason it’s so awesome is its dialogue. Most of the reason I enjoy Tarantino movie is that fact that 75% of the dialogue has absolutely nothing to do with the plot or the characters. It’s mostly a clever commentary on current events from a completely different perspective that is nonetheless surprisingly accurate. But what really makes the movie so moving is the raw emotions that the extremely talented ensemble cast displays. From high to low, all the actors are unrivalled in their skill, especially Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, and Michael Madsen.

At the end of the day, Reservoir Dogs is not appropriate for those weenies who can’t take a little vulgar language or extreme violence. However, if you revel in fascinating plotlines, amazing acting, and clever wordplay, than Quentin Tarantino is your man. If you like this movie, go watch anything else he’s made (Wikipedia to the rescue) or wander on over to Christopher Nolan.

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Lemony Snicket (pseudonym for Daniel Handler) is an investigator into the lives of three orphans, by the names of Violet, Klaus, and Sunny Baudelaire. The Baudelaires, who are all reasonably attractive and intelligent, have several different talents, respectively: mechanical inventiveness, researching skills, and a love of biting that becomes a love of cooking. Through a Series of Unfortunate Events (like how I slipped that in there? Oo, SLIPPED?!), the Baudelaires parents tragically die in a fire, forcing them to live with a distant relative named Count Olaf. Count Olaf is a terrible actor who abuses the Baudelaires and forced them to serves his acting troupe in demeaning ways. Throughout the thirteen book series, the same basic pattern is repeated twelve times, with many variants.

Though the formula is repetitive, the formula is not the point of the series. The point of the series is to satire everything. And when I say everything, I do mean it. Snicket has the opportunity to satire almost every field of interest because a character represents almost every field of interest. Even aside from this, Snicket satires the general rules of narration, that a writer is not supposed to do certain things, or mention certain facts. Instead of distracting the reader from the story with lengthy interludes that have nothing to do with the plot, they draw the reader in even closer to the strange anachronistic world that the Baudelaires live in.

But, the word anachronistic brings me to my second point. Word choice. Lemony Snicket has an excellent vocabulary, and encourages readers to learn more words, defining them in funny and yet understandable ways. Not only does Snicket increase your vocabulary, it encourages children to become more interested in different fields of study and to become more specialized through further education. Snicket shows that evil is not always caused by idiocy. Rather, it is caused by the misuse of knowledge or lack of the desire for knowledge. Most of the side characters are viewed harshly because they are passive and do not fight the good fight, even if the actions will not change the results. Snicket proves that fighting is worth it from a moral standpoint, not from a utilitarian point of view.

In The End (get it? Eh? Eh? Okay, I’ll stop…), Lemony Snicket has a darkly satiric tone that is wonderful to read, particularly for adults. I’m not sure how children would be able to handle the dark and depressing atmosphere of the stories, but I’m sure that those in fifth grade and higher could handle it.