Review: The Thing (dir. by John Carpenter)


 

In what may well be John Carpenter’s finest film—greater even than Halloween and Escape from New York—the director boldly remakes Howard Hawks’ 1950s sci‑fi classic The Thing from Another World and, incredibly, surpasses the original. Unlike Hawks’ version, steeped in Cold War anxiety, Carpenter draws more directly from John W. Campbell Jr.’s short story Who Goes There?, shifting the focus to paranoia festering within an isolated group of men. His setting, an American scientific station buried deep in the frozen desolation of Antarctica, becomes the perfect pressure cooker for suspicion, distrust, and barely contained madness.

Carpenter’s vision announces itself immediately. The film begins with an overhead shot of jagged, snow‑capped mountains—an endless expanse of icy barrenness. This stark imagery is paired with Ennio Morricone’s minimalist score, a low, pulsating bass throb that mimics a heartbeat. In just these opening moments, Carpenter and Morricone establish the film’s defining tone: desolation, unease, and a creeping inevitability. Carpenter never lets this sense of dread relent; the unease initiated in the opening frames lingers throughout, until the final note of the end credits.

Where the 1951 film wasted no time showing an alien in the flesh, Carpenter follows Campbell’s original concept more faithfully: the creature hides, assimilates, and imitates. It kills and replicates members of the Antarctic crew, transforming everyday interactions into moments of terror. This conceit allows Carpenter to stage his film not just as a monster movie, but as a psychological exercise in tension. Each man is a potential threat. Each argument, however trivial, is laced with suspicion. The audience feels trapped alongside the crew, caught in their spiral of mistrust. At its core, the film is less about the monster’s abilities than about what happens when trust is stripped away from a community forced to live in isolation. The most chilling moments often occur not during the creature’s violent reveals, but in quiet exchanges where fear and doubt spread faster than the Antarctic cold.

The special effects remain legendary, an enduring benchmark even decades later. In the early 1980s, CGI was not a viable option, so Carpenter entrusted Rob Bottin, then in his early 20s, with designing the creature effects. Puppetry, animatronics, latex, and rivers of stage blood combined to create some of the most grotesque and imaginative transformations ever put on film. The kennel scene—when the alien first erupts from the body of a sled dog—remains a horrifying pinnacle of practical effects, unsettling in its creativity and biological plausibility. Bottin’s work is still studied in film schools as a triumph of practical ingenuity. The tactile, slimy, unpredictable reality of these effects would be nearly impossible to replicate with CGI. If any film demonstrates why computer graphics can feel cold and weightless compared to visceral practical effects, The Thing is it.

Anchoring the film is Kurt Russell as helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady, equal parts rugged pragmatist and reluctant leader. Russell’s performance gives the film its center of gravity, portraying a man forced into command when order collapses. Keith David brings an equally commanding presence as Childs, his wary, confrontational energy making him a perfect foil to Russell. The ensemble cast is one of Carpenter’s great strengths here. Each character is distinct, each performance meaningful; there are no throwaway roles. Even smaller parts resonate, as every man crumbles at his own pace under the weight of fear. One of the film’s most unsettling turns comes from Wilford Brimley, whose genial, trustworthy persona makes his gradual descent into paranoia and violence all the more disturbing.

The music deserves as much recognition as the visuals. Rather than scoring the film himself, as he had done in his earlier works, Carpenter handed the task to legendary composer Ennio Morricone. The gamble paid off. Morricone’s spare, throbbing motifs mesh seamlessly with Carpenter’s minimalist style, complementing the stark visuals rather than overwhelming them. The score is skeletal, almost primal—music that feels less composed than unearthed, vibrating with dread. It remains one of the finest examples of how sound can serve as a force multiplier for tension.

The Thing is not for the squeamish. The violence is graphic, the gore extreme, and the imagery deeply unsettling. Yet for those who admire masterful filmmaking, it stands as essential viewing: a perfect marriage of vision, execution, and atmosphere. For students of cinema, it offers a lesson in how genre filmmaking can transcend cliché and attain something close to pure, operatic terror. In the end, Carpenter’s The Thing is more than a remake—it is a redefinition. It strips away the veneer of mid‑century optimism and replaces it with a stark meditation on distrust, survival, and the alien within us all. Few horror films hold up this well or manage to stay this scary for fans old and new.

Mass Effect 2 Launch Trailer


Well, it is just days away until the release of one of the most-anticipated games of 2010. The game I am talking about is BioWare’s Mass Effect 2. It is the sequel to the very popular and critically-acclaimed action-shooter/rpg hybrid Mass Effect which came out in late 2007. The launch trailer marks the start of the massive marketing and ad campaign to promote the game. This one includes interspersed within the trailer blurbs of review scores and positive quotes from game reviewing magazines and websites dedicated to games. All throughout the trailer we have Shephard’s erstwhile ally (and possibly, enemy) The illusive Man of the shadowy, pro-human group Cerberus narrating a brief take on what players will encounter in this sequel.

I will say that the trailer is even better than the last one released by BioWare. The other one details the dangers of recruiting the new sets of characters to help the player in their quest, but this one shows how much more epic this particular fight and game really is. Mass Effect was already quite the massive and epic sci-fi space opera when it came out and this sequel seem intent on out-doing that predecessor in every respect from the look of the trailer. It helps that its all classed up by the voice of The West Wing’s President Bartlett also known as Martin Sheen. The trailer even hints at the opening events of the sequel which has been talked about many times at other places. I won’t go into detail about it but lets just say that Shephard and the original Normandy don’t have a nice first-encounter with the sequel’s main antagonists, The Collector.

So, January 26, 2010 should be retitled Mass Effect 2 Day. For some players, it will be just like a holiday as every work must be put down and stop in order for the playing of said game to commence.

Source: Mass Effect 2 Launch Trailer in HD

Review: Terminator Salvation (dir. by McG)


It has been 25 years since a certain James Cameron introduced the film-going public to the post-apocalyptic world of Judgement Day. While he’s never really fully shown the war-torn future ruled by the machines in the the two films he directed in the Terminator franchise he does show glimpses of it. It’s these glimpses of desperate humans fighting to survive against Skynet and its machine hunter-killing robots which have always intrigued and made its fans salivate at the thought of seeing it realized. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines in 2003 tried to show how it all truly began, but again it just hinted at the future battlefield and not the full-blown war. It is now 2009 and the most unlikely filmmaker has finally shown what the future of Judgement Day looks like. McG’s Terminator Salvation succeeds and fails in equal amounts yet has laid the groundwork for the future of the franchise as a war series instead of of its past as installments of what really is one huge chase film.

There are many things which work in Terminator Salvation and one of them happen to be its director McG. A director who is much-maligned for his too campy Charlie’s Angels set of films would’ve been the last name to look to for a restart to the stalled franchise. His direction of this fourth entry in the series was actually very well-done. There’s none of the cartoony and way over-the-top action set-pieces of his Charlie’s Angels past. Instead he moves the film along in a brisk and energetic pace with very little downtime for much introspection. It is this pacing which makes this a good and, at times, an above-average action-film but also serves to make any of the scenes questioning what it is to be human (once again) and machine seem tacked on. The first three films in the series have delved into this theme and question too many times for a fourth attempt make it seem any more relevant than the previous times.

McG went out to make a war entry to the series and to an extent that’s what he did. While there are chases to be had it doesn’t necessarily mean its all about John Connor once again (though the film does make it a point of targeting him again in its own fashion). Terminator Salvation has finally shown what the world looks like after the events of the third film and what had been hinted and teased at in the first two. The world is a desolate place with ruins of landmarks to give the audience a reference point. We see Los Angeles a tumbling and crumbling wreck which looked eerily like something out of the recent Fallout 3 scifi-rpg game. Even San Francisco makes a post-apocalyptic appearance as a major Skynet headquarters. McG achieves this post-apocalyptic look by bleaching out the film’s color palette to the point that browns and greys dominate. He actually achieves to add grittiness to this film which his past films had never shown him having the ability to do. While this film won’t sway people to admiring his skill as a filmmaker it does show some  growth. Then again he does have a hold of a film series which is nothing but B-movies elevated through bigger budgets and access to the latest in film FX. If I have any gripe to point out about the action in the film it’s that there’s not enough of it to truly convey a “War Against the Machine” scenario. We get these tantalizing hints, but not something on par of what a fuure war should look.

The budget could be seen on the screen as the film uses a combination of CGI and practical effects to pull off a much more complex robotic army for Skynet. It’s the robots and machines which keeps bringing the audience back each and every time the series releases a new entry. We don’t just have the Human Resistance fighting the typical T-800 or even the more advanced T-1000 or T-X. We get the earlier versions of these human hunting and killing machines. From a brutish and zombie-like T-600 we see in the LA-scenes to newer and bigger specialized Skynet soldiers like the anime-inspired mech Harvester which towers several stories high and literally harvests humans it finds to take back to SKynet’s R&D bases. When the original Terminator does make an appearance it’s both a welcome and a surprise as McG’s technical wizards find a way to bring back the original exactly the way it’s supposed to look. I’m sure the Governator of California would want to have that physique and youth back.

As an action-film Terminator Salvation works well enough when the action appears on the screen. Now as a film that tries to delve into the philosophical trappings of the series it doesn’t so much as fail and sink the film, but almost does which would’ve been a shame. While not the worst in the series in terms of storytelling it does come across as very scattershot in what story it wants to tell. The film actually has three ideas which could’ve been used to make it’s own film. Is the film a story of John Connor and his rise to his prophesized leadership of the Resistance (he’s a leader of a branch of fighters, but not yet of the whole group in this film)? Or is this film about the search and attempt to make sure the person who will be Connor’s father stays alive to allow what transpired in the past to happen (time-travel can be a tricky and confusing thing to comprehend)? Or is Terminator Salvation the story of the new character Marcus Wright and his quest to find out just who, or what he is exactly? It’s all three of those and all three weren’t explored enough to make one care too much for the story being told. There’s great ideas in all three but trying to combine them into one coherent storyline mostly falls flat and uninsipiring for a film trying to be the war movie in the series. For what are war movies mostly but attempts to show inspiration in the face of desperation. There’s very little of that in this film. If the writers had been given a chance to further streamline the story into one major arc then this film would have benefitted greatly in the long run.

With acting very tightly tied-in with the story being told it’s only logical that the performances by the cast rarely go beyond acceptable. Christian Bale’s John Connor is always dour and brooding. He’s almost becoming a typecast for any role that requires for him to be the down man in any party. He does this ably, but he doesn’t bring anything to the role which hasn’t already been explored in past entries. His performance does show hints of mental instability as the weight of being the savior and prophet of the human race may be starting to get to him. The other two pivotal roles in the film have more meat to play around with. Anton Yelchin as the teenage Resistance fighter destined to become John Connor’s father in the past shines in the scenes he’s in as he elevates a bland script with some youthful energy and hints of the adult Kyle Reese fans of the series know so well. Then we arrive on the newest character in the series: Marcus Wright.

Little-known Australian actor Sam Worthington was recommended by James Cameron for the role of Marcus Wright. Like Anton Yelchin’s performance, Worthington’s work in the role of Wright saves the film from mediocrity. While it is not a start-turning performance by any means Worthington does make it difficult not to pay attention to him throughout the film. The man has presence and every scene he is in shows why Cameron himself has faith in being the latest to carry the Terminator torch. The rest of the cast is quite a throwaway in that we never really get to know any of them and invest anything in their well-being.

Terminator Salvation is a very frustrating film in that there’s so much great ideas to mine. The series has always tried to explore such themes as fate, predetermination and human free will. While the third film in the series was quite lacking in memorable action sequences this fourth entry makes a mess of trying to explore these themes. Again, it seems as if the film’s script was rushed into production with very little doctoring and as the production continued forward no one bothered to point out just how average and bland the storyline does sound despite being the most overly complex of the series.

One thing I am sure of is that the one person people thought would be the weakest link in this film instead happens to be its strongest. McG and some inspired acting from two newcomers keep the film from becoming a total failure. Terminator Salvation is an able and, for most of it’s running time, a very good action film with brisk pacing and energy in its action sequences. Enough of these elements keeps the film’s fractured and scattershot of a storyline from sinking the film into total failure. As a summer tentpole action film it delivers on some of what it promises, but it could’ve been more and better. Some would settle on calling this entry in the franchise a failure, but I am always an optimist and a fan of action thus I’ll land on calling this film a successful failure.

Aliens vs. Predator (Xbox360/PS3/WindowsPC)


2010 is not even a month old and it already has two quality games already in the books with Platinum Games’ Bayonetta and Vigil Studios’ Darksiders. The end of January brings the heavily-anticipated follow-up to BioWare’s critically-acclaimed Mass Effect. Following in Mass Effect 2‘s wake will be Take-Two’s own sequel with the February 9th release of BioShock 2. The one game which seems to be running under most people’s radar is a little title from UK-based developer, Rebellion Developments. The game I speak of is the FPS-shooter simpy titled, Aliens vs. Predator.

That name alone should bring excitement to gamers who have played previous iterations of that very game on the PC years ago. Let’s just forget that the two films using that same name doesn’t even exist and concentrate on just how awesome this game seems to be turning out. The game’s premise is pretty simple from released info by the studio. It’s a FPS where three factions (Aliens, Predator and Colonial Marines) each have their own single-player campaign which would make-up the overarching storyline. Rebellion Developments knows that the single-player campaign shall be as epic as the films they’re based on, but in the end it is the multiplayer campaign where players get to play on-line with other players either as an Alien, a Predator or a Colonial Marine. I have a feeling that very last faction will be dying quite a bit when chosen by poorly-skilled on-line players.

The game will be coming out on February 16th here in North America with a February 19th release for Europe. The publisher handling it’s release will be SEGA with Rebellion Developments handling any updates, patching and future DLC for the game’s lifetime. As a special, albeit very pricey, extra for the gamer completist it looks like SEGA will be making available for pre-order a limited Hunter Edition of the game with loads of extras that may or may not justify a 99.99 dollar price tag.

Yes, my friends that is a fully-articulated face-hugger in that Hunter Edition. I think the only thing which would make it even better is if it could be remote-controlled to scuttle around. Other things in the Hunter Edition will be the collected edition of the original Dark Horse Comics’ Aliens vs. Predator mini-series. The game will be released on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Windows PC. Sorry, there’s no plans to release a Mac-version of the game. Sorry, Apple peeps.

I, for one, will be pre-ordering the Hunter Edition because that’s just how we player’s roll. here’s to hoping this game delivers on all that Rebellion has shown and promised the last couple years of its development.

Official Site: http://www.sega.com/games/aliens-vs-predator/

The Things by Peter Watts


The Things by Peter Watts

I just came across this little piece of very creative writing. Let’s just say that it puts a nice take on the ending to John Carpenter’s The Thing. This short story definitely could be made into a very great short film. In the film we always thought the Thing was evil, but what if we actually got to see inside it’s mind and learned its motivations.

Again, a killer and great read.

Posted using ShareThis

Review: Daybreakers (dir. by The Spierig Brothers)


In 2003 there was this little zombie flick from Down Under which flew under the radar of most film-goers, but definitely not of horror fans everywhere. The name of this film was Undead and while the film was a nice little genre mash-up of a romp it showed just how new to feature-lenght filmmaking it’s brother directors were. The Sprierig Brothers’ film seemed to have done well enough in the box-office and in the dvd market that they were soon offered by genre studio Lionsgate to make another film from their very own script. It was a vampire story which once again shows the brothers’ penchant for culling a story of different genres to create something familiar but with some originality peppered throughout. With a reported budget of $20-21million dollars, the finished product of Daybreakers arrives in the theaters in the early going of 2010 as a nice, albeit very flawed, change of pace from the so-called “Twilight”-style of vampire films.

The Spierig Brothers have set their vampire film in the near future of 2019 where it’s been 10 years since an unnamed vampiric virus has turned most of the world’s population into vampires. It is in the early 20-30 minutes of the film where Daybreakers really showed some genuine new blood (pardon the pun) in the vampire film genre. We’re shown a world which has adjusted to the turning of society from a human one to a vampiric one. While society has turned it’s people still clung to old habits they practiced when still human.

Schools are still in session but instead of morning and afternoon they’re now held at night. There’s still coffee stands for business people to get their cup of joe, but now spiked with real human blood. Even corporations have adjusted from their former human interests to one much closer to their new existence. Blood has become a rare commodity and traded as such on the world markets. One could see the filmmakers attempt to allegorize mankind’s addiction to oil and it’s finite supply to this new society’s need to harvest fresh human blood from human’s captured and turned into living blood banks. But like all precious natural resource this blood supply has begun to run low thus threatening not just the survival of a human race close to extinction, but damning those who turned into vampires into something mutated by blood-deprivation.

While the story had some definite merits to them. From the world-building by the Brothers to try and make the audience invest some interest in the film right down to the very Rated-R violence sorely lacking in most vampire films nowadays. Still with those to help garner interest in the audience, Daybreakers manages to make too many misses to the hits which tried to keep the audience’s attention.

Most filmmakers have a tendency to spell out to the audience what they’re watching. The skill to show rather than tell the film is a skill very rare in most filmmakers which is probably why we have many average-to-good ones and very rare great ones. The Spierig Brothers tried to show rather than tell, but they seem to have went a bit extreme in trying to show the story and forgot to add a semblance of a tight screenplay. The dialogue wasn’t bad, but what little there was seemed disjointed and almost tossed in to add a semblance of an explanation to what was happening. Characters and motivations were handled as if the audience should automatically understand when at times it just seemed like they came out of nowhere and were suddenly important to what was occurring on the screen. One particular character, who gets billing on the Daybreakers ad-campaign one-sheets, gets a mention in a passing bit of dialogue between two main characters and appears midway in the film only to be used as a plot-device to show how evil and heartless the main antagonist was. This is twice in less than a year where Isabel Lucas’ character gets this treatment. It happens more than once and shows just how much more work could’ve been done to the screenplay to really advance the original ideas the brothers wanted to film.

As with most films with a less-than-stellar screenplay the actors cast to act it out need to work double-time to salvage something very good to be presented in the final cut of the film. I couldn’t honestly say that there were any bad performances from all involved. While the overall acting performance from the cast wasn’t awful, or even bad, there was a sense of disinterest from several of the main characters which didn’t really help in trying to explain the motivations of why they did what they did on-screen. Ethan Hawke as Dr. Edward Dalton (vampire hematologist working on a blood substitute) almost sleepwalks through the entire film. We know soon enough that he hates being a vampire and won’t touch human blood, but he brings little life to his character and most of the cast do as well. It’s almost as if they couldn’t decide how seriously they should take the story they were filming and end up being one-note in the process. The only two actors who seem to realize the ridiculous, albeit fun premise, of the story was Sam Neill as head of the corporation providing human blood to the vampire population and Willem Dafoe as the human with a past secret who holds the key to finding a cure to vampirism.

Neill plays Charles Bromley with a certain amount of oily, snake-like panache we like to equate with captains of industries willing to sacrifice their own blood if it means turning a profit. He doesn’t stay immune from the script’s flaw, but he gamely trudges on to try and fully realize a well-rounded character. We could see why he does what he does even though we probably won’t agree with them. Willem Dafoe as the other bright star in an otherwise one-note character really got the best bits of dialogue in the film. His Lionel “Elvis” Cormac scene-chews through every second he’s on the screen. Dafoe’s own quirkiness and brand of craziness salvages from Daybreakers a semblance of a fun time.

I would say that despite the many flaws from the script and how it affected the performances of most of the cast in the end this was still a vampire film and a gruesome one at that. The year’s since Undead and the upping of a budget for this film hasn’t dulled the gorehound in the Spierig Brothers. Daybreakers was definitely not Twilight in every drop of blood in its celluloid veins. Blood really flows in this film and they flow a-plenty. The brothers don’t just stop in blood being spilled. He has the red liquid sprayed as if from intense pressure. But in addition to that particular brand of red nasty they add a bit of the zombie influence in the film as limbs are ripped asunder, heads torn off and flesh bitten and chewed on. This awesome display of gore and grue was a great cure for a case of the Twilight bug. It was in the last reel where the brothers ramp up the vampire violence where I truly felt like they were in their element. Maybe this was the film they should’ve gone for instead of trying to add some societal undertone to the film. Not every vampire film has to be an arthouse darling like Let the Right One In. Sometimes a filmmaker needs to realize their limitations as storyteller and stick to what they do best.

In the end, Daybreakers was definitely a missed opportunity to showcase a new fresh take on a horror genre being diluted by PG and ten-marketing sensibilities. It was a film with some very new ideas to add fresh blood in a staid vampire genre but these early hits were soon to be hampered by a weak screenplay and a cast that seemed truly disinterested in giving a spirited performance with a couple of exceptions. The film does salvages a bit of fun which made me enjoy enough of the film. The brothers take of their gloves in the final reel as the gore and violence almost reaches fun, goofy territory. It was this final reel which made me wish that Spierig Brothers had concentrated on right from the start. It definitely would’ve cut down the film into a much leaner and faster-paced film and maybe, just maybe, got everyone else to have fun on-screen the way Sam Neill and Willem Dafoe seemed to be having. The Spierig Brother definitely have a sense of style when it comes to horror, but they still have some ways to go before they could truly say that they’ve arrived as fully-rounded filmmakers.

10 Best Films of 2009


While some have called 2009 as not being so great in terms of quality films, there have been others who think the year was a very good year for films from start to finish. Not all the best films of 2009 came out during the so-called “awards season” from October thru December. Some of the worst films, in my opinion, were released very late in the year and clearly done so to try and force its way into award contention. While the year of 2009 saw some very good films come out early in the year and, to my surprise, even during the popcorn and brainless season of the summer blockbusters.

My list consists of the 10 films I saw in 2009 which I believe to be the best of all them. Some people will probably agree with me on and some won’t. Some of my picks may have been little seen outside of independent arthouse theaters or film festivals but it doesn’t diminish just how much I think it deserves inclusion in a “best of” list. In the end, I thought these films doesn’t just celebrate what’s great about films but also celebrating those filmmakers who show that when given room to breathe and do things their way magic can still happen.

10. Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call – New Orleans (dir. Werner Herzog)

9. The Messenger (dir. Oren Moverman)

8. Collapse (dir. Chris Smith)

7. Moon (dir. Duncan Jones)

6. Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (dir. Uli Edel)

5. Avatar (dir. James Cameron)

4. Up In The Air (dir. Jason Reitman)

3. District 9 (dir. Neill Blomkamp)

2. Inglourious Basterds (dir. Quentin Tarantino

1. The Hurt Locker (dir. Kathryn Bigelow)

Review: Star Trek (directed by J.J. Abrams)


2009 marks the return of Star Trek franchise to the big-screen. It has been seven years since the last entry in the series with Star Trek Nemesis. The critically-panned and box-office failure of that tenth entry in the film series marked a major low-point for the franchise. The franchise was dead in space with no one seeming to be able to figure out a way to bring the franchise back to big-screen prominence. So, it comes as a surprise that it’s eventual savior happens to be a non-fan of the franchise. J.J. Abrams has confessed to not being a major fan of the series, but wanted to see how he could bring back the franchise to a high bar of standard it had set for itself through the decades of its existence. This latest and eleventh entry in the Star Trek film series marks a drastic improvement over the past decade of film entries in the series. Abrams has crafted an enjoyable and fast-paced film which includes equal amounts of details fans of the franchise love, but also creating a film which would appeal to non-fans as well.

To start off, I’m what one might call a Trekker who has pored over all the details of the franchise. Backstory, character bios and details of the expanded universe is bread-and-butter. When first announced that Abrams would be in charge of trying to bring the franchise back to prominence I was quite skeptical. I’m not the biggest fan and admirer of J.J. Abrams and his work. It didn’t help that his idea to bring in more non-fans to the fold smacked of pandering. I will say that I will be the first to eat my words as Abrams’ Star Trek has been the best entry in the film series for the last 15 or so years. It’s a fresh new take on Gene Roddenberry’s universe which has spanned over four decades starting with the original TV series and continuing with the many novels which continue to churn out year in and year out.

The casting of a relatively unknown actors by Abrams and his crew was a bold move as their performances of iconic characters beloved by tens, if not hundreds, of millions of fans could sink the film and put the final nail in the film series’ efforts to stay up on the big-screen. Fortunately, it is this cast of unknowns who make this film so fun to watch. Chris Pine as James T. Kirk does a fine job of not apeing and micmicking the Kirk of Shatner but instead makes the character his own while at the same time bringing enough of the self-confidence and charm Shatner brought to the role. As good as Pine’s performance as Kirk was the film really belongs to Zachary Quinto’s portrayal of a more conflicted and darker Spock. Where Leonard Nimoy’s work as Spock was more of a mature character whose conflicting dual-nature as an emotional human and logical Vulcan would resurface here and there throughout the decades Quinto’s Spock has that conflicted nature simmering right on the surface. We get a much darker Spock who hasn’t fully accepted his two warring sides. One might even say that this Spock was a much darker portrayal than what had been previously done of the character. Quinto’s performance was a star-making one and should make fans relieved to know that an iconic character was in good hands.

The rest of the ensemble cast do a commendable job in their roles with other stand-out works by Karl Urban as Bones McCoy and Bruce Greenwood as Capt. Pike. Urban, especially, does a remarkable job of channeling DeForrest Kelley’s McCoy without seeming to copy the man. Like Quinto’s Spock, Urban’s McCoy should resonate with fans and non-fans alike. Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, Zoe Saldana as Uhura and Anton Yelchin as Chekov all do good work but are not on the screen enough to show what they could really do. With the seeming success of this film I’m sure they’ll have more chance to grab a hold of their characters and make them their own. If there’s a weak link to the cast it would be Eric Bana’s Romulan Nero. The character of Nero wasn’t fully realized beyond the maddened, revenge-fuelled archetype for Bana to truly work his skills on. There’s just not enough in the character to make him a great Star Trek villain. There’s hints of Khan in the role but also hints of weaker villains in the franchise’s history. If the writers had done a better job fully realizing the character for Bana I think Nero would be spoken of on the same level as Khan, but he won’t be and that brings up the other weak link in this film: the writing.

I say the writing is a weak link not because of the dialogue spoken but of the the overall plot of the story. There’s a simple enough plot to hold the film together but writers Orci and Kurtzman tried to create an epic storyline which would keep both loyal fans and new people to the franchise happy. By doing this they oversimplified the story where details were left out that created huge plot holes in the story. Also, the way Kirk’s character meets up with each member of what would become his core group relied too much on timely coincidences. They tried to make each meeting to be a memorable one which ended up with action-sequences that could’ve been left out but added to make the next meeting interesting. Like another origins film of the summer, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, both Orci and Kurtzman tried to lump too much origin details into this prequel. The finished screenplay could easily have used one or two more doctoring to make it a much more leaner and streamlined story.

The good thing was that as simple and pedestrian the story ended up being it did create a way for Abrams to connect both the original stories created by previous films and tv series to this new film which now has given the franchise a new path to move forward on without forgetting the canon established in the previous four decades. Star Trek by Abrams could be compared closely to the James Bond reboot in Casino Royale and the Batman reboot with Batman Begins. All three films share similarities in that all three honors the canon of the expanded universes of their respective franchise but brings enough new ideas and changes to re-imagine the franchises to a new generation of fans. Like those two other films Star Trek has laid the foundation for new stories to be told and not having to worry about continuity problems. Now any future films in the franchise have carte blanche to boldy go where the series hasn’t gone before.

In the end, J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek turned out to be better than expected as he has created a film that is a fun, action-filled ride with a wonderful performance by the ensemble cast of unknowns. Even a weak villain and premise fail to damper and bring down the film. While it is not a great entry to the series it does bring back the franchise to a resounding return to the big-screen that should please most of its loyal fans while appealing to the casual audience. I, for one, cannot wait to see what Abrams has in store for the forseeable future of the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Project Natal: Evolution and Revolution


This past summer of 2009, during a company press conference the day before the start of E3 2009, an announcement which might have brought a paradigm shift in how consumers interact with their consumer electronics. The announcement I speak of is their 3D, full-body motion-cap sensor control scheme dubbed Project Natal. Tweets, texts and status updates across the ether that’s the web was a consensus jaw-dropping with a mixture of excitement and skepticism. The initial reaction was that this was Microsoft’s answer to the new 800 lb. gorilla in the gaming industry: Nintendo’s Wii.

It’s a logical reaction and one that was duplicated in a smaller part from Sony’s introduction of it’s own motion-based controller system. But Project Natal seems to be the one that has the world of not just gaming buzzing with excitement and possibilities, but the whole tech industry. Microsoft’s gamble and evolution of existing technology has the making of revolutionizing not just gaming but how people interact and use their PC and everyday home gadgets and technology.

First and foremost, Project Natal will be focusing on expanding the base of Xbox 360 owners and players to include not just the kids (both young and old) who play games ranging from kid-friendly to mature-oriented, but the rest of the family who want to be able to join in without having the master and pick up a controller. Yes, Project Natal will allow gaming to move forward with the option of actually not having to use a physical controller in one’s hands to play a game. Does it mean it will replace the handheld controller core gamers have gotten used to and by years of use become an almost intuitive part of their bodies? I don’t think it will, but instead become an option.

I will be the first to say that I will never ever get rid of my console gaming controllers. There’s an ease and familiarity of it in my hands when playing games. But the prospect of having the option of trying out all my games using my body as the controller itself is both exciting and intriguing. Project Natal is science quickly catching up to science fiction.

I say Project Natal both excites and intrigues me as a gamer for several reasons. It’s exciting to see how far gaming has evolved from the early days of the Atari VC (2600 for those who don’t recognize). While I have never been truly sold on the complete immersion Nintendo has touted the Wii and it’s Wiimote was to be for gamers, I will admit that it’s success has spurred it’s rivals to innovate and come up with the next step. If Natal is not bringing excitement back to an industry that is stagnating (even with the Wii’s innovation it has slowed down in terms of innovation) then why complain about the industry’s lack of innovation and imagination. Natal, whether one truly believes in it or believes it to be vaporware, has opened up a new door in how gaming will move forward in the forseeable future.

Another reason why Natal has me excited as a gamer is how it could breathe new life to old gaming experiences. I have never been a very adept fighting game players as combo systems and how to make them work on a controller pad has always eluded me. But with Natal I can see a future where even the most novice fighting game player could chain combos and attacks by simulating the moves themselves in a basic fashion. Playing Madden using the QB POV would actually become interesting and give a player a very close approximation as to what a real QB may see when standing in the pocket. The possibilities are endless.

Project Natal intrigue me as a gamer for the games dedicated to it that developers could come up with. Why have controller peripherals playing Rock Band when Natal could possibly make air guitar and air drumming a true reality. Console RTS would finally have a control scheme that could match the precision of keyboard and mouse system of their PC cousins. There will be hits and misses, but the fact that such a dynamic option on how games could be played should intrigue gamers looking to have a future in developing in the industry they love.

This coming evolution in gaming may be too ahead of its time. Some will say that Microsoft just took the existing technology already available with the Wiimote and EyeToy and just packaged both together into one package. That may be true but it doesn’t mean it won’t work. The industry has always been taking the latest innovation by one company and evolving and tweaking new ideas from it. While Nintendo and Sony may have arrived first in their respective tech they never thought of actually combining the two and adding new features to remove the controller outright.

Revolution that Natal brings will not be limited to gaming, but should also impact everything which relies on the synergy of software and hardware people’s everyday lives. Project Natal should be made to work with PCs, HDTVs, home electronic systems and everything in between.

It seemed such a coincidence that the one film depicting a near-future using a Natal-like technology would have its creator tout the new Microsoft technology. Project Natal does seem to be making the tech of Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report move from the realm of science fiction and into the realm of science reality. Natal has the possibility of allowing people to forgo the use of keyboards and mouse when using their computers. Pretty much the whole armor development sequence in Iron Man where Stark manipulates, designs and finally complete a new suit design without ever typing anything on a keyboard I could see Natal turning it into a real-world application for mechanical and electrical engineers. Not to mention research scientists in other fields.

While it is still too early to consider Project Natal as a success. It is still in a beta form with no announced released date other than sometime around 2010. It should be seen with eyes looking at the exciting and intriguing possibilities it opens up for gamers and the world of technology instead looking at it with cynical eyes already deciding to view it with skepticism. It doesn’t matter whether one likes Microsoft as a company or not. What they announced and showed on June 1, 2009 in the Galen Center in Los Angeles may just usher an evolution and revolution in gaming and tech that everyone will benefit from.

As we have seen with the pre-release and post-release reaction regarding James Cameron’s Avatar sometimes the product does live up to the promise and hype. When they do the general public will embrace it even if it does have some initial flaws and weaknesses. I think like Cameron, Microsoft’s Consumer Electronics and Gaming Division decided to gamble and leapfrog what others have started and move it in a direction no one had been expecting or even comtemplate as a remote possibility.

The Thing Prequel Starts Shooting in March – ShockTillYouDrop.com


John Carpenter’s The Thing is one of my favorite films ever made and I consider it one of the best sci-fi horror ever put on celluloid. There’s been talk for years of making a sequel to the 1982 film. While nothing ever came of it outside of some very well-done and well-written Dark Horse Comics were issued and set after the events of the first film. SciFi Channel even had a tentative plan to film a 4-hour miniseries sequel, but after many delays and obstacles to getting the pre-production beyond the concept stage the plan was dropped.

In the beginning of the new millenium Ron D. Moore of Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica (reboot) fame wrote a script which would take place prior to the evtns of the first film. This prequel would tell the story of how the “the Thing” was first discovered by the Norwegian team on Antarctica and the subsequent incidents which would lead into and tie with Carpenter’s film.

I am quite excited that the prequel is going to finally start filming this March and into June. The same studio which financed and released two excellent horror films in the past 10 years (James Gunn’s Slither and Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead remake), Strike Entertainment, will also be the one responsible for this prequel. Matthijs van Heijninjen will be directing the film from Ron D. Moore’s scriptment with rewrite work from Eric Heisserer.

The question, I am sure fans will have, is will the filmmakers go full on digital, traditional practical effects or a combination of both. If they even go with option 2 or 3 they definitely need to bring in Rob Bottin and Stan Winston’s Effects House to either consult or handle the FX work. Bottin should just be made part of the crew just because he’s Rob Bottin and The Thing was as much his film as Carpenter’s.

Here’s to hoping Heijningen and Heisserer don’t fuck this prequel up.

The Thing Prequel Starts Shooting in March – ShockTillYouDrop.com

Posted using ShareThis